Chris Christie is in
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
No, it's more like "wanting" to be on a diet so you construct a diet of "junk food" since these are the things you "like" to eat. But refusing to give up despite the constant weight gain you carry on.
Speaking of insanity, your team has been cutting taxes on the wealthy for decades (that's the doing the same thing over and over part) with the argument that they'll create jobs. Today, taxes are the lowest they've been in a long time, but... the "job creators" are not creating jobs (that's the not-different outcome part).
I do not agree with the right that cutting taxes will create jobs. I take the more constitutional angle that the government does not have a right to our assets and cutting taxes should be a priority of government, not to create jobs, but to preserve the integrity of the constitution of the United States.
Fair enough. The government does not have a "right" to our assets, but the government, as us, has a need for pooled assets. Without exercising force to compel, some would opt out of the tax game, but still enjoy the benefits of, for example, a common defense. So in that sense I do not agree that cutting taxes should be the government's priority; I believe that efficacy should be the government's priority.
Why not do what Europe does and have a national sales tax? Herman Cain is offering the 9-9-9 special. What's wrong with that?
Agree about your "integrity of the Constitution" remark, but I believe if taxes are cut in the right way, we have a chance to ignite the US economy.
Of course, they would never do what's required in the way of restructuring, but in reality it's THE ONLY WAY.
Taxes need to be SLASHED across the board... and the tax-base widened.... to the extent that foreign companies WANT to build facilities in the US and employ American workers. Not a "snowball's chance in Hell", of course, but that's what's needed.
Well, yes, cutting corporate taxes "can" create job growth for the reasons you stated. I think Ricter was referring to individual tax rates.
Property rights are essential to freedom. Indeed, I would argue they are more important than free speech and almost as important as the right to a trial by one's peers and the right against arbitrary search and seizure.
There is nothing in the Constitution about "spreading the wealth around" or other socialist nonsense. Indeed, much of it represents an attempt to prevent that kind of looting. The Takings Clause, since eviscerated by the Supreme Court, is an example. So is the prohibition on a non-apportioned income tax, whcih required an amendment to end run.
One reason Obama seems so out of step with the America most of us know is he doesn't seem to get any of this. Indeed, he has lectured about inventing constitutional doctrine to get around it. People rightly sense there is a lot more to his rhetoric than just finding some extra money to fund the deficit. He wants to turn our system upside down and put the parasite class in charge of allocating the wealth of savers and the incomes of the middle class and above.
If Republicans are protecting people's wealth, then they are doing exactly what they should be doing.
There is nothing in the Constitution about "spreading the wealth around" or other socialist nonsense. Indeed, much of it represents an attempt to prevent that kind of looting. The Takings Clause, since eviscerated by the Supreme Court, is an example. So is the prohibition on a non-apportioned income tax, whcih required an amendment to end run.
One reason Obama seems so out of step with the America most of us know is he doesn't seem to get any of this. Indeed, he has lectured about inventing constitutional doctrine to get around it. People rightly sense there is a lot more to his rhetoric than just finding some extra money to fund the deficit. He wants to turn our system upside down and put the parasite class in charge of allocating the wealth of savers and the incomes of the middle class and above.
If Republicans are protecting people's wealth, then they are doing exactly what they should be doing.
This is a valid point. The republicans must answer this question.
My personal belief is that our current conditions all trace straight back to the housing bubble. That bubble occurred with a republican president in office. George Bush either allowed or encouraged the fed to lower interest rates when they should have been raised in the face of inappropriate appreciation of home valuations. People paid too much for homes and then compounded the problem by taking home equity loans. When home prices corrected dramatically many were left underwater and could not refinance to take advantage of lower rates. They were also unable to continue to fuel their consumerism with equity-backed credit. Another side-effect is that people underwater on their mortgage no longer have the mobility to move to take higher paying jobs elsewhere without ruining their credit. Wages began to stagnate and consumerism dipped further.
So why do republicans deserve another chance to lead?
Blaming Obama for making the problem worse with liberal tax and spend policies is not enough. A successful republican candidate must explain why his/her ideas merit consideration and how they will recover the economy. One idea might be to restore the indepedence the fed once had to regulate the economy via setting appropriate interest rates. Rates should be much higher, it is a simple fact.