Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Presidential candidates on corporate taxation...
The dirty secret neither candidate tells you: consumers pay the corporate taxes, not corporations. It is factored into the price of every product we buy, and therefore, under the banner of "getting corporations to pay their share", Congress continues to increase what we pay for goods and services. ALL taxes are paid by individual Americans, both as a wage-earner and a consumer -- no one else really pays taxes.
Facts, but dark humor nonetheless...
FM*2 is started to help lower income families have easier access to home loans, passed by a Democratic Congress under Carter...
Democrats repeatedly rejected stricter regulations on FM*2...
GOP Congress and President fail to more strictly regulate FM*2, though they had the votes to do so...
The Democrats won Congress in 2006 because the GOP did little to lead, but much to take for themselves...
The stock market starts to decline months after the Democratic Congress is sworn in...
Democrat in charge of FM*2 repeatedly says "no problem"...
The 110th Congress does nothing for its 2 years that anyone will remember...
The least popular president since Hoover has to wake up both parties (i.e., Congress) to let them know that while they were sleeping, our financial business went awry, heavily due to their actions and subsequent inactions toward FM*2...
Every Congressman in front of a TV camera claims they warned everybody else (including the 2 presidential candidates), but no one led Congress to action...
Except the least popular president since Hoover.
You should be equally concerned about who you are voting to return to Congress as you are about who will be president. This financial crisis had more to do with Congress than any president.
Democrats repeatedly rejected stricter regulations on FM*2...
GOP Congress and President fail to more strictly regulate FM*2, though they had the votes to do so...
The Democrats won Congress in 2006 because the GOP did little to lead, but much to take for themselves...
The stock market starts to decline months after the Democratic Congress is sworn in...
Democrat in charge of FM*2 repeatedly says "no problem"...
The 110th Congress does nothing for its 2 years that anyone will remember...
The least popular president since Hoover has to wake up both parties (i.e., Congress) to let them know that while they were sleeping, our financial business went awry, heavily due to their actions and subsequent inactions toward FM*2...
Every Congressman in front of a TV camera claims they warned everybody else (including the 2 presidential candidates), but no one led Congress to action...
Except the least popular president since Hoover.
You should be equally concerned about who you are voting to return to Congress as you are about who will be president. This financial crisis had more to do with Congress than any president.
Friday, October 10, 2008
No McCain fan, but...
Why doesn't McCain, every time BO decries the "failed policies of deregulation", point to the fact that this crisis was precipitated by the Democrats' demands for deregulation of the lending industry, so that it was easier and easier for people who otherwise would not qualify for loans to not only get loans, but ones that would eventually default through ballooning interest rates?!?!? Why doesn't he point out that the decline in the stock market began within months of the Democratic Congress taking the oath of office?!?!? Why doesn't McCain point out that Obama is nothing new, just a plain Democrat who has voted with his party more than Ted Kennedy, and his party leads the least-liked Congress in recent history?!?!? Why doesn't McCain articulate the hows and whys of Obama's tax plan being damaging to independent businessmen -- the largest employers in the country?!??! Right now, it just sounds like a lot of fear-mongering, no details, just scary words.
McCain's got to do better than he has been doing if there is to be a comeback. IMHO, McCain has run a poor campaign, and his own liberal views, which have come out in the debates, has done nothing to mobilize conservatives. If Palin is not ruined by her hanging around these conservative pretenders, and she decides to run in 2012, I might vote GOP again. But I hope, with her national exposure, she runs third party and accelerates the process of putting these two cancerous parties out of business.
Mark
McCain's got to do better than he has been doing if there is to be a comeback. IMHO, McCain has run a poor campaign, and his own liberal views, which have come out in the debates, has done nothing to mobilize conservatives. If Palin is not ruined by her hanging around these conservative pretenders, and she decides to run in 2012, I might vote GOP again. But I hope, with her national exposure, she runs third party and accelerates the process of putting these two cancerous parties out of business.
Mark
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Notes on Prez debate 2...
The first question about specifics of what will be done saw Obama on his soapbox without answering the question, just the same tape-recorded message. McCain was only a little better.
A following question on why either candidate should be trusted led to Obama Bush-bashing, while McCain pointed to organizations who fact-check -- 'don't believe our rhetoric per se, check us against our records'. Obama admitted there was blame enough to go around, distanced himself, and went back to referencing his short recall of history: "8 Years".
On priorities in the economy, Brokaw asked to prioritize energy, health care, and entitlement programs: Obama talked to the government spending for energy. McCain spoke of opening access to drilling and nuclear power and 'all of the above'. I know something about energy, and you do not want the government driving energy, you want opportunity. There are millions of jobs in energy YET TO COME. Remember, when either says "the government needs to fund...", it is YOUR money they are talking about. Obama rightly (IMHO) prioritized energy, which he said would lead to "5 million jobs". He kep talking about us only having 3% of the world's oil supply, but no mention of our much, much higher natural gas reserves and how we can use them better, and how our BTU capacity in coal dwarfs Middle East oil. He wants "government investment" (YOUR tax dollars) in alternative energy, which will only slow the business opportunities and make millionaires off your tax dollars (Mike Skelley of Texas). How about dropping ALL corporate taxes, which are backdoor user taxes anyway? Then, alternative energy will have less a burden to create and be profitable....
Obama keeps running the Bush tape. He is shy on specifics. McCain is not too plentiful on details, either. Obama is a better orator, and actually handles this format well. McCain is almost overly empathetic, but does connect.
Obama does not, however, have a good grasp on businesses and how they work. McCain understands the generalities of economic flow.
Health care a commodity? Obama thinks it s a Bush problem ("8 years"). Keep YOUR plan, if you do not have one, you can buy it from the government. If you do not, you will be federally fined. Well, employers will soon bail, and everyone will be buying the government health care. And I really do not like McCain's plan. People, sell the boat and buy insurance! If your health care is not a priority for you, why should it be for me? Health care a right?!?!? Marxist/socialist thinking.
Note to Obama, deregulation has been supported by Clinton and Carter. Regulation implies some people who will never qualify for housing loans, and that your work with ACORN was part of the problem. Minor regulation is needed, especially in the turning loans. BTW, did you know that candidates keep for themselves money unspent on campaigning? That's one of the ways you become a millionaire in Congress...
USA's down economic situation a hindrance to our role as peacemaker? McCain touts his ability to recognize when and where to apply our military forces. Obama, well, is weak here. Obama, here's the 4-1-1: Iraq invasion was about regime change because of UN violations and the financing of terrorism in the Holy Land, liberating a deadly dictator who committed genocide on 250,000 to 500,000 of his own people, and WMDs, which everyone from 1992 on assumed he had. Brokaw hits Obama with the likes of Rwanda: he then speaks of moral obligation (like preventing genocide)...personally, I find our global interventions draining and would like to see them reduced substantially. Basically the discussion went back to debate 1.
The longer this went on, the more I realized I could have "debated" sides, both fell into their mantras. There was no knockout punch. McCain did not get the much needed win tonight; it was a draw, IMHO. Obama did not need a win, just not a loss. Neither candidate is very strong here, both pursuing expected party lines, with Obama seeking to lead by government "funding and investment and help" (his hand is in YOUR wallet), and McCain advocating a more opening of opportunity access (which will be difficult to take advantage of with such tight money). Both have scary tax policies.
In summary of both underwhelming performances, I am compelled to ask, "Did Texas reserve its right to secede from the USA when it became a state?"
;-)
Note: some news people think McCain "won", but not by enough to be a game changer. I still call it a draw. FYI: I agree with Democrats (according to online tests) less than 5% of the time, with the GOP less than 50% of the time, and with Libertarians and Constitutionalists 80+% of the time)
A following question on why either candidate should be trusted led to Obama Bush-bashing, while McCain pointed to organizations who fact-check -- 'don't believe our rhetoric per se, check us against our records'. Obama admitted there was blame enough to go around, distanced himself, and went back to referencing his short recall of history: "8 Years".
On priorities in the economy, Brokaw asked to prioritize energy, health care, and entitlement programs: Obama talked to the government spending for energy. McCain spoke of opening access to drilling and nuclear power and 'all of the above'. I know something about energy, and you do not want the government driving energy, you want opportunity. There are millions of jobs in energy YET TO COME. Remember, when either says "the government needs to fund...", it is YOUR money they are talking about. Obama rightly (IMHO) prioritized energy, which he said would lead to "5 million jobs". He kep talking about us only having 3% of the world's oil supply, but no mention of our much, much higher natural gas reserves and how we can use them better, and how our BTU capacity in coal dwarfs Middle East oil. He wants "government investment" (YOUR tax dollars) in alternative energy, which will only slow the business opportunities and make millionaires off your tax dollars (Mike Skelley of Texas). How about dropping ALL corporate taxes, which are backdoor user taxes anyway? Then, alternative energy will have less a burden to create and be profitable....
Obama keeps running the Bush tape. He is shy on specifics. McCain is not too plentiful on details, either. Obama is a better orator, and actually handles this format well. McCain is almost overly empathetic, but does connect.
Obama does not, however, have a good grasp on businesses and how they work. McCain understands the generalities of economic flow.
Health care a commodity? Obama thinks it s a Bush problem ("8 years"). Keep YOUR plan, if you do not have one, you can buy it from the government. If you do not, you will be federally fined. Well, employers will soon bail, and everyone will be buying the government health care. And I really do not like McCain's plan. People, sell the boat and buy insurance! If your health care is not a priority for you, why should it be for me? Health care a right?!?!? Marxist/socialist thinking.
Note to Obama, deregulation has been supported by Clinton and Carter. Regulation implies some people who will never qualify for housing loans, and that your work with ACORN was part of the problem. Minor regulation is needed, especially in the turning loans. BTW, did you know that candidates keep for themselves money unspent on campaigning? That's one of the ways you become a millionaire in Congress...
USA's down economic situation a hindrance to our role as peacemaker? McCain touts his ability to recognize when and where to apply our military forces. Obama, well, is weak here. Obama, here's the 4-1-1: Iraq invasion was about regime change because of UN violations and the financing of terrorism in the Holy Land, liberating a deadly dictator who committed genocide on 250,000 to 500,000 of his own people, and WMDs, which everyone from 1992 on assumed he had. Brokaw hits Obama with the likes of Rwanda: he then speaks of moral obligation (like preventing genocide)...personally, I find our global interventions draining and would like to see them reduced substantially. Basically the discussion went back to debate 1.
The longer this went on, the more I realized I could have "debated" sides, both fell into their mantras. There was no knockout punch. McCain did not get the much needed win tonight; it was a draw, IMHO. Obama did not need a win, just not a loss. Neither candidate is very strong here, both pursuing expected party lines, with Obama seeking to lead by government "funding and investment and help" (his hand is in YOUR wallet), and McCain advocating a more opening of opportunity access (which will be difficult to take advantage of with such tight money). Both have scary tax policies.
In summary of both underwhelming performances, I am compelled to ask, "Did Texas reserve its right to secede from the USA when it became a state?"
;-)
Note: some news people think McCain "won", but not by enough to be a game changer. I still call it a draw. FYI: I agree with Democrats (according to online tests) less than 5% of the time, with the GOP less than 50% of the time, and with Libertarians and Constitutionalists 80+% of the time)
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Big government, Bailouts, and FEMA...
Regarding Big Federal Government...
According to Ron Paul, the Libertarian-Republican-Libertarian, corporate taxes pay 70% of the income received by the feds and we individual taxpayers pay 30%. As you have seen elsewhere here, we really pay all the taxes -- taxes are a part of the cost basis of companies, and that cost is factored into every product consumers buy. Further, it is basically a user tax, which hits lower income people the most.Since we are footing the bill, perhaps we should be honest about this whole mess and pay the rest directly, removing the corporate tax completely, since we pay it anyway. Companies would be free to re-invest and expand, creating jobs. But if you are like me, you suddenly realize you are going really see what you are paying to the government, and you will be fuming at the thought that your visible tax bill will be three times higher. This is exactly what Congress does not want you to see, for then your demands (certainly mine) for a smaller government is going to so much louder. Right now, Congress poses companies and corporations as bad guys, the ones not paying enough, which is just a backdoor blame game to get more out of OUR wallets. Mind you, we really are paying it anyway, and if it were visible, Congress would have no place to hide. This ball-and-cups game Congress plays is a big factor in driving companies offshore -- they can be more profitable even if workers are paid the same.
According to Ron Paul, the Libertarian-Republican-Libertarian, corporate taxes pay 70% of the income received by the feds and we individual taxpayers pay 30%. As you have seen elsewhere here, we really pay all the taxes -- taxes are a part of the cost basis of companies, and that cost is factored into every product consumers buy. Further, it is basically a user tax, which hits lower income people the most.Since we are footing the bill, perhaps we should be honest about this whole mess and pay the rest directly, removing the corporate tax completely, since we pay it anyway. Companies would be free to re-invest and expand, creating jobs. But if you are like me, you suddenly realize you are going really see what you are paying to the government, and you will be fuming at the thought that your visible tax bill will be three times higher. This is exactly what Congress does not want you to see, for then your demands (certainly mine) for a smaller government is going to so much louder. Right now, Congress poses companies and corporations as bad guys, the ones not paying enough, which is just a backdoor blame game to get more out of OUR wallets. Mind you, we really are paying it anyway, and if it were visible, Congress would have no place to hide. This ball-and-cups game Congress plays is a big factor in driving companies offshore -- they can be more profitable even if workers are paid the same.
The government is too big, period. The government is costing us our hard-earned money at an extremely high rate, costing jobs, costing small business owners and large corporations, and shows no desire to squelch its appetite. We need to cut the size of the federal government in half, if not by two-thirds, to a more affordable level for US, the American taxpayers.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Thomas Jefferson
BTW, checkout FairTax.org. Read through it, use its calculator to see how it might impact your household, read about the prebate management. If it works for you, let your Congressmen know (HR 25, S 1025)!
Regarding The Bailout...
Rep. Culberson:
Thank you for representing me and standing against this socialistic bill.
Regarding FEMA...
It is just a big handout anyway. Why should the hard workers of Albany, NY or Kalamazoo, MI contribute, via federal taxation, to recovery efforts here in the Gulf Coast? Why should we on the Gulf Coast pay for the recovery of flooding in Iowa? Why not have each state, which has its own set of natural disaster phenomena, escrow emergency relief money of its own? The amount FEMA "gives" is not full home replacement (Katrina victims got an average of $2300, I recall), and each state and its officials are more adept at handling the local issues than some outsider from DC.
One more note....
EVERY American needs to visit this site, review the Constitution regularly, and compare how your Congressional team is doing with respect to it. The Constitution is there for YOUR protection, regardless of your political label:
http://www.usconstitution.net
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Thomas Jefferson
BTW, checkout FairTax.org. Read through it, use its calculator to see how it might impact your household, read about the prebate management. If it works for you, let your Congressmen know (HR 25, S 1025)!
Regarding The Bailout...
To my Senators:
I oppose the economic recovery bill, the idea of it as well as the details because the very idea of it smacks at everything American, it does not allow the market and business to make adjustment, and every other industry that has experienced contraction has done so at the cost of stronger companies buying up weaker companies and their marketshare. The auto industry at one time had American Motors, Nash Motors, Desoto, Hudson, and many others. The oil industry had Skelley, Gulf, Arco, Sinclair and many others. Competition weaned them out, and Congress did not permit the same natural processes to take place in the lending and financial industry. SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I oppose the economic recovery bill, the idea of it as well as the details because the very idea of it smacks at everything American, it does not allow the market and business to make adjustment, and every other industry that has experienced contraction has done so at the cost of stronger companies buying up weaker companies and their marketshare. The auto industry at one time had American Motors, Nash Motors, Desoto, Hudson, and many others. The oil industry had Skelley, Gulf, Arco, Sinclair and many others. Competition weaned them out, and Congress did not permit the same natural processes to take place in the lending and financial industry. SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rep. Culberson:
Thank you for representing me and standing against this socialistic bill.
Regarding FEMA...
It is just a big handout anyway. Why should the hard workers of Albany, NY or Kalamazoo, MI contribute, via federal taxation, to recovery efforts here in the Gulf Coast? Why should we on the Gulf Coast pay for the recovery of flooding in Iowa? Why not have each state, which has its own set of natural disaster phenomena, escrow emergency relief money of its own? The amount FEMA "gives" is not full home replacement (Katrina victims got an average of $2300, I recall), and each state and its officials are more adept at handling the local issues than some outsider from DC.
One more note....
EVERY American needs to visit this site, review the Constitution regularly, and compare how your Congressional team is doing with respect to it. The Constitution is there for YOUR protection, regardless of your political label:
http://www.usconstitution.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)