My Opinion on the GOP Loss

This is my opinion take it for what it's worth:

I think I know why we lost the election. I have been a GOP voter my entire adult life. From the time I was 18 I voted straight GOP save one time when I voted for Gov. Jim Hunt. For years I toed the party line of limited government, fiscal responsibility and family values morality. Now that I am older I see things differently.

I believe that the GOP has tied themselves so much to the family values and morals platform that it has become a millstone around their necks. From Terry Schaivo to gay marriage to abortion the party seeks to impose a moral code on it’s base. I believe that the average American voter doesn’t care about those issues and thinks politicians have no business in them either. That is not to say the average voter is immoral. I believe they know right from wrong and don’t want their political leaders preaching to them. I believe that most citizens are by in large libertarian. They want the government to leave them alone, stay out of their wallets, their bedrooms, schools etc. They find liberal dogma even more intrusive than conservative dogma. They abhor lawsuits for the sake of enrichment, government sanctioned discrimination disguised as equality, class envy and socialism masquerading as economic fairness.

For me and I believe many others like me, for the GOP to regain their positions, they must begin to adopt a truly freedom oriented agenda. Stick to your jobs! Balance the budget. Run the government economy like everyday people run their household budget. Defend the country from invasion both passive and aggressive. Close the borders and make it unattractive for illegals to come here from anywhere. Have a muscular foreign policy. Take no crap from tin horns and smack down those who are threats. Other than that keep it at home. Stop preaching, lecturing and berating the citizens that you know how we should live our lives. Most of us don’t give a damn about gay, straight, black, white, male or female. We’ll live our lives you mind your own business. Get your damned hands out of my wallet. I earned it, I’ll keep it and I can spend it better than you can. Kill the IRS and give us the fair tax. Take the shackles off American business and citizens and watch us kick the world’s butt.

The time has come for the government to be what Jefferson envisioned in his first inaugural address, "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. The party that claims to be conservative needs to start acting like it and stop being a bunch of busy bodies. Say what you will do and do it. Lie to us and you have seen what happens. Leave the citizens alone, We did fine with limited government for years we can get along fine with it now.

 

I agree!

All those politcal test on the interent I always come up Libertarian. I would vote that way if it would count for anything. I voted for Perot (and elected Clinton) in 92 because of the business sense being brought to Gov't.

 

WOW!!!

That sounds great!! ...It'll never happen. I have been a Democrat all my life. I have never voted for a Republican except for 1 time, this years Johnston County Sherrif's race I figured the current Sherrif hasn't embarrassed himself or our community and he has done a good job.

I could say the exact same things about my party. Both parties have become hostages of extremists at opposite ends of the spectrum. There has to be room in the middle for intelligent discussion that is free of religious and prejudicial attitudes. I'm in no way discounting the need for a a real discussion of moral issues but morality is not the sole property of the religious right. There are many great Americans that live their lives and conduct their business in a moral and honest way. Some of these folks are religous and some are not. As we see every day one doesn't prove the other.

I agree with some of your statements about things like frivolous lawsuits but it is just as abhorent to me to see businesses and institutions that will continue in ways they know to be harmful because the risk and costs of a lawsuit are not as great as it would cost to change the actions to be less harmful. Is this morally right? It seems to me that this is just as wrong as filing a suit for the sole purpose of financial enrichment.

So much of what passes as real issues like the immigration debate seem to me to be ways to stir the rabble to vote. If you want to solve the immigration problem don't put up a fence. Make it economically unfeasible for an employer to hire an illegal immigrant. If you take away the economic incentive to come here people will not come. In a recent political ad a candidate accused another of voting to allow illegal immigrants to burn the American Flag. I would love to know Who sponsored the legislation and what the number of the bill was because I would like to read it. In another ad the same candidate derided the right of an employer to hire a bi-lingual workforce. A lot of Europeans speak 2-3 or more languages. There is absolutley nothing wrong with this. If you want a job make your skill set better than the other folks that are applying.

I will also agree with you about foreign policy. We are now mired in a war that we have chosen to fight based on lies. Saddam Hussein is an evil person and he should not be in power. I do not however believe that he was in league with Al Queda. Iraq was the closest thing in that part of the world to a secular government. He did not tolerate extremists. He cracked down on all of the groups in his country that were religious extremists. We removed him from power and created the largest terrorist training camp in the world. I don't know the answer to how we should have gotten rid of him but I do believe we did it the wrong way. We have spent our treasure and shed the precious blood of our heroic troops for a people that do not want freedom and do not know how to maintain a tolerant peaceful coexistence with each other. Maybe we should have left him in power to deal with Iran that's why we supported his regime for so long to begin with. Do you really think that egomaniac would have allow Iran to build a nuke?

Afer 911 The United States had the moral and legal right and more importantly the support of the free world in dealing with Al Queda and the Taliban. We didn't close the deal. We have now become a nation that is no longer revered and we are distrusted by most of our former allies. Our foreing policy is a train wreck.

Our domestic policy is not much better. The corruption from both sides of the aisle during the Katrina disaster is appalling.

I agree with you I want the government to stay out of my bedroom, and stop preaching to me. Don't promote legislation to crack down on sexual predators as you type text messages to teenagers. Don't come up with a tax code that is so complicated and full of loop holes that those that can afford to hire tax attorneys pay the least. Make sure that the "advisors" that you listen to don't have there hands in your pocket or yours in theirs.

For all of us I would have the following advice. Set an example by deeds not words on how we should live our lives. Your children learn by what they see you do. Don't preach and rail against homosexuality and immorality just before you call a gay meth dealer for a "massage". Teach your children to respect others and their property.

Long story short I believe there is too much money to be made by the powers that be by catering to the extremists on both sides to ever really move back toward the center. But we can always hope and pray!!! (just not in public :lol: )

 

Stonecold,

You make a great point about the Republicans abandoning conservative values. And while the Rpublicans "lost" on Tuesday, this was anything but a victory for the Democrats. I think the American public has recognized the collossal failure of the current Republican agenda (they had their chance controlling all three branches of government). However, replacing the ones who were up for reelection with moderate to conservative Democrats (in most cases, and that's comparing them to other Democrats), is hardly an endorsement of the Democrat's plans, which they DO have, if anyone would bother to listen.

Tuesday's results may not be a victory for any politicians or parties, but it is certainly a challenge for all involved: work together, get something done, cut down on the bickering, corruption, and hypocrisy. I believe that's the only way the American public is going to be satisfied with anyone in Washington.

Robbiedon, well said. I agree.
Snuff

 

Fairtax....enough said

Fairtax....enough said

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

No, not enough.

A fair tax isn't, as long as there are tax shelters and other ways that some people can get away without paying their share.

On the other hand, a consumption (sales) tax is the most fair. It does not punish those who work hard and make better of themselves. Nor does it punish those who save and/or invest.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

Unless it includes the corporate consumption it is far from "most" fair.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

Corporations don't pay (and never will pay) taxes.

(By corporation, I presume you mean a business)

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

Of course they do, I have seen far too many of the returns.

Most corporations are businesses, but they are "artificial" people as far as the law and taxes are concerned.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

Actually they don't. All taxes are simply passed on to the consumer. Anyone who made it through Business 101 knows this.

Ok, here we go. Make yourself comfortable and I will teach.

I have a company that makes widgets. It costs me (in materials and labor) $45 per widget. The government will get another $5. I sell the widgets for $100, netting me a profit of $50.

Now, the government suddenly decides that they need a new IRS office building, so they raise my taxes to $7 per widget.

Now, do you honestly think I'm going to reduce my profit to $48 per widget? No, I'm going to raise the price of my widgets to $102 each. The government gets their extra $2, and I keep my original profit of $50.

Believe it or not, that's how businesses work. Yes, there is a "Tax" box on their returns, but businesses do not pay taxes.

They also don't pay fines.

Take for example the tobacco industry a few years ago. The government decided that the tobacco industry was just a little too shady, so they decided to fine them. The price of cigarettes doubled overnight. Did the tobacco company get punished? Nope, it was us smokers who paid the fines.

Most are, but some are not and only exist as a legal loophole. I figured you meant business, but had to be sure.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

So, you now claim that the MARKET does not set the price for a product but the business based on the amount of profit they wish to make? This is only a poor attempt to villify taxes by the claim they have to be paid by a person even if it has to be removed by several degrees. I do not pay any taxes either as I demand raises to offset them, which is a corportation so it does not pay taxes (according to you) so it comes from the businesses that pay for the services of that corporation. But they do not pay taxes, so it must come from the businesses who pay those businesses, but they do nto pay taxes either so it must come from the consumer who buys the products, but they are paid to compensate for the taxes too ... so either none of us pay taxes or all of us pay taxes.

Ahhh, so the claims of the oil companies not controlling the price of gasoline does not follow this concept why? Other than it not fitting the "story" concocted to "prove" taxes are "bad" and are paid by only a few.

Those "legal loop-holes" will still pay taxes too.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

The MARKET will allow some leeway in the pricing of products. The consumer will only pay so much for my widgets. Competitors may under price me. However, other widget companies will also be taxed at the same rate, so they will increase their prices to cover the additional expense. And, presuming that widgets remain popular, the consumer will continue to buy them at the increased price.

It is neither poor, nor merely an attempt. It is the way the business world works.

You can demand whatever you want, but the company who hires you has the choice to either meet your demand or end their contract with you. If they choose to meet your demand, then they will raise the price of their product(s) to offset that increase in expense.

Oh, by the way, I did not say that corporations did not pay taxes, I said businesses do not pay taxes.

All taxes are ultimately paid by the consumer.

What does a regulated industry like the oil companies have to do with unregulated industries like tobacco?

No, taxes are paid by all. Every time you buy something, you have paid a tax. Either directly, through state and local sales tax, or indirectly as noted above.

Yes, since they aren't a business, they have no way of passing the tax on to the consumer.

To tell you the truth, I can't believe a bright guy like yourself, can't (or won't) understand that, to businesses, taxes are an expense. And, like all other expenses, are passed on to the consumer.

If I'm an accountant and the price of pencils and paper goes up, do you not think that I would raise the price of my service to cover it? If I drove a tow truck and the price of gas went up, do you not think I'd raise the price of my service to cover it? If the price of raw plastic that I make my widgets out of went up, do you not think I'd raise the price of the widgets to cover it?

If you accept that, why not accpeting that I would do the same if a tax on my business went up?

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

Oh only if it were so! There would probably be a quite a few organizations still in business up in the Michigan area.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

Unfortunately all things weren't equal in that case. Offshore companies did not have the same expenses so were (are) able to under price the US market.

Increasing import levies would alleviate the situation, as far as that is concerned, but it would also put a strain on the US consumer who relies on the lower prices of the imports. Basically, making them cost as much as us ain't necessarily a good thing.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

No, the business should already be pricing for maximum profits either in percentage of cost or volume. In either case the added increase to "offset" taxes is nothing more than an accounting "smoke and mirrors" ploy. Taxes are based on profit, which becomes a critical calculation process once you get into the formula.

No. We have mostly Sub-chapter S and LLC corporations, but in the full Chapter C corporation we have yet to consider taxes in the calculation of prices. Neither have the accountants ever suggested any change in prices due to tax rate.

Assuming again that the pricing was already below the market price, which is not correct.

The C Corp mentioned is a business, but it deals only with other businesses so does it actaully pay taxes according to your theory or not?

ONLY if you first assume that all taxes will be paid by a person instead of an entity. People are legal entities and corporations are legal entities and BOTH pay taxes on their profits.

Huh? Whereis the regulation to prevent the gasoline industry from raising the prices or limited the percentage of profit?

Only if you first make the assumption that only a person can pay a tax instead of an entity.

Thus, proving the claim of pass though taxes is just based on a preconceived assumption that this will be the case.

Because it is flawed logic and untrue, since expenses are not connected to price but only to profitability. The market sets the value and if the expenses are such that a profit will be made there can be a reason to sell the good/service. If the expenses are too high there will be no way to raise the price above that the market sets. Taxes are based on the amount of profit, which is only determined after all of the expenses are calculated and subtracted from the income.

You can try, but if you were already the top price it is unlikely given there would more likely be other accountants willing to make less of a profit to increase the total profit through increased volume.

Again, ONLY if the market allows it. Our shiiping costs have increased, as have those of many other industries, but we ahve not be able to raise prices accordingly. If that were the case ALL costs would increase at the same percentage rate.

You can try, but it is unlikely that would be easily accomplished.

I do not accept it for the reasons given nor do I accept the ability to determine the affect of a tax on profits at any point prior to knowing the total overhead for a business.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

You presume that I would be a top priced accountant, with no reason for that presumption. I'm just talking about a regular, competative business. But those other accountants have also had the pencil/paper expenses increased. They, like me, would have to increase the price of our service, since our budgets our based on the previous net earnings. With an increase in expense, the net earnings decrease (and there goes our vacation to Hawaii), so we'll have toi increase prices. Yes, there may be one or two accountants who will not increase prices, but they will soon either cut back on services, or increase their prices as well.

That's called inflation. I'm sure you've heard of it.

It's easy. It happens all the time.

It's simple. Tax is an expense. All expenses incurred by a business are passed on to the consumer. Will there be a complicated calculation to figure out what the tax will be and what the adjustment to price would be to cover it? Certainly, but no more complicated than amortization calculations.

Look, you can live in your rose coloured glasses world believing that businesses who exist to make a profit will just absorb an increase in expense and take a cut in their profits by not raising prices, but here in the real world things work just like I said.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

No, I spoke of the market price not the relative position. You assume the market will absorb the increase to allow the Hawaiian vacation which is severely flawed logic. The market will not always allow an increase in cost regardless of the reason for that increase. Why would they cut back on service if they can make anacceptable profit in their mind? Maybe they are happy with a vacation at Myrtle Beach and will accept that level of profit. The market price determines whether you will stay in business based on your costs. If you cannot control one cost you compensate with the control of another or accept lowered profit.

Yes, but the increase in fuel costs far outstripped the inflation rate. :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

In mainstream economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices, as measured against some baseline of purchasing power.

The prevailing view in mainstream economics is that inflation is caused by the interaction of the supply of money with output and interest rates. In general, mainstream economists divide into two camps: those who believe that monetary effects dominate all others in setting the rate of inflation, or broadly speaking, monetarists, and those who believe that the interaction of money, interest and output dominate over other effects, or broadly speaking Keynesians.

You might want to look at the "all the time situations" a little more closely as that has not be the clear case as you seem to believe. The maximum value the market places cannot be exceeded and as you approach that maximum there is a marked decrease in sales regardless of profit.

http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/ema/ema_casestudy1.pdf

http://www.chem.mtu.edu/~crowl/CM4861/Lecture1.pdf

http://www.house.gov/smbiz/democrats/Reports/ENERGY REPORT 2006.pdf

http://www.sba.gov/library/pubs/fm-13.txt

It would not be more complicated than an amortization calculation? LOL To determine what your final overhead expenses verses costs will be for a year, calculating the tax that would be due, calculating the needed increase including the subsequent increase in taxes?

Taxes are NOT an overhead as they are not incurred unless and until there is a profit shown at the end of the year and thus is only an effect when the profit is made.

How many products increased in proportion to the increased cost of transportation in the stores in which you shopped? I think that calculation would prove which of us more clearly understands the real world of business.

How do you price the products/services in your business? What price fluctuations do you use to allow for increased energy costs for example?

How often do you raise your prices as a result of inflation or increased costs?

 

It's a common misconception that business can simply "pass on" increased costs to consumers. Any increase in the price of a good or service is bound to have an effect on demand. How much of an effect depends on a variety of factors -- marketplace competition, the availability of reasonable substitutes, the consumer's perception of the necessity of the particular product or service. The demand for a given item may be relatively inelastic to price changes, but at some point, almost anything you can think of will show a response to price changes. If the economy is working properly, prices should settle out at the point that provides the highest profit. If prices increase beyond what consumers are willing to pay, then no profit is made, and the business goes under. A business can't simply raise the price to cover an added expense and expect to sell the same number of items.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

Are you referring to this fairtax? http://www.fairtax.org/

It's something I need to look into a lot more. I'm glad to see it compensates for spending up to the poverty level, but I still have some concerns about regressivity. If it taxes only consumption rather than total income, I don't see how it can avoid being regressive. I understand the arguments about providing incentives for investment, but I think that can be overdone. Americans at all levels of income benefit by living in our society, and all should be expected to pay their fair share to support our society.

Some definitions here, so we are all on the same page. Progressive and regressive are not value judgments, although one may make value judgments based on those terms. A progressive tax is one which takes a higher percentage of income as income increases. A regressive tax takes a lower percentage of income as income increases. A flat tax, if such a thing existed, would take the same percentage of income at all income levels. Our income tax was designed as a progressive tax, but there are so many ways to shelter income that it is less progressive than it could be. Sales taxes generally tend to be regressive, because lower income earners spend virtually all their income, while higher income earners save and invest part of their income.

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
~Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

Not sure what the proposal is specifically, but if I were king of the world, what I would so is make taxes on universally purchased items at some rate, and then taxes on "luxury" items at a larger rate.

I always cringe at the mention of "their fair share", which is liberal speak for "the rich pay a greater percentage" even though they use less government resources. It's like Orwell said, "All are equal, but some are more equal than others." This is notwithstanding my statement above. Charging a higher tax on luxury items is neither fair nor just, but it is necessary to make a consumption tax palatable to the liberals.