Who next for the republicans

[iNow]

Maybe it's because he refuses to sign Grover Norquist's no tax pledge... You know, the fact that he's made a reasonable and intelligent decision is perhaps what's keeping him from appealing to republican base.

 

Perhaps it's because he has experience in China. They might think he's a secret commie. After all, he was appointed by Obama. Am I the only one who is getting a sense of McCarthyism and the rise of the Nazis in 1930s Germany in our current political environment? Economic conditions are similar and leading to common discontent among the populace.

[Phi for All]

Maybe it's because he refuses to sign Grover Norquist's no tax pledge... You know, the fact that he's made a reasonable and intelligent decision is perhaps what's keeping him from appealing to republican base.

How do you argue even a slightly higher tax rate for people who are convinced they don't need the programs it gets spent on? I swear there are some disconnected brains out there that can't figure out who builds the roads and the libraries.

 

Am I the only one who is getting a sense of McCarthyism and the rise of the Nazis in 1930s Germany in our current political environment? Economic conditions are similar and leading to common discontent among the populace.

I read something recently in that regard. I'll try to find it. They were trying to equate Blackwater Security to Hitler's brownshirts.

[Brainteaserfan]

Am I the only one surprised that John Huntsman isn't doing better than he is?

I haven't spent a whole lot of time researching the different candidates, but from the reading and a few parts of some of the debates, I thought he sounded surprisingly prepared for the presidency. So, no, you aren't.

 

How do you argue even a slightly higher tax rate for people who are convinced they don't need the programs it gets spent on? I swear there are some disconnected brains out there that can't figure out who builds the roads and the libraries.

Many of us want those turned private too. Yay Ron Paul!

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Privatization discussion has been split: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61601-privatization/

[Phi for All]

Many of us want those turned private too. Yay Ron Paul!

This is a great example of where Ron Paul goes too far. Road costs can be drastically reduced by other means, whereas privatization could do nothing but raise them. Boo, Ron Paul!

 

I agree with his stance on fiscal responsibility (I used to call myself fiscally conservative, but now I truly dislike what that has come to mean). I agree with him about not policing the world with aggressive military actions against sovereign nations. But like most extremist positions, his "purist" ideology fails to take reality into consideration and he dives right into the fringe. While I can certainly understand removing cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, I'm not as sure about legalizing all drugs. While I'd welcome a reform of the Social Security Act, abolishing it would only increase costs through privatization. And he's obviously enjoying some kind of controlled substance if he thinks monopolies should be allowed with only the concept of a voluntary contract to keep them honest.

[JustinW]

I agree with his stance on fiscal responsibility (I used to call myself fiscally conservative, but now I truly dislike what that has come to mean). I agree with him about not policing the world with aggressive military actions against sovereign nations. But like most extremist positions, his "purist" ideology fails to take reality into consideration and he dives right into the fringe. While I can certainly understand removing cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, I'm not as sure about legalizing all drugs. While I'd welcome a reform of the Social Security Act, abolishing it would only increase costs through privatization. And he's obviously enjoying some kind of controlled substance if he thinks monopolies should be allowed with only the concept of a voluntary contract to keep them honest.

I also agree that we shouldn't police the world. But we definitely have to have a strong stance when the outcome of another country's dealings have a direct affect on us.

I too can understand removing cannibus from the Controlled Substance Act, but I think it's easier said than done.

A reform to medicaid and social security is an absolute necessity. The amount of fraud throughout those programs are running those programs into the ground. We need to better control those programs and defend against fraudulent claims that take the resources away from those who actually need them.

Should monopolies be regulated to remain honest? Regulation of buisness can come from both ends of the spectrum. Government puts regulation on buisness to protect against corruption, but the public also regulate by not buying into the buisness once it's found to be corrupt. Then it will eventually fail or it's competetor will rise. So I guess the question that I'm asking myself is, should the Federal Government regulate morallity?

[Phi for All]

Should monopolies be regulated to remain honest? Regulation of buisness can come from both ends of the spectrum. Government puts regulation on buisness to protect against corruption, but the public also regulate by not buying into the buisness once it's found to be corrupt. Then it will eventually fail or it's competetor will rise. So I guess the question that I'm asking myself is, should the Federal Government regulate morallity?

Monopolies are not a question of morality, it's an unfair advantage affecting the market. Corruption is unchecked except by regulation when there is no competitor for the market to turn to.

 

Some alternatives may be available that completely bypass a core product group, but if GE is allowed to corner the market on light bulbs, would you seriously consider using candles instead? If so, what if I had the monopoly on fire extinguishers?

 

I'm still very concerned with the neo-con influence on GOP-sponsored legislation. It all seems aimed at benefiting not just business, but certain businesses. No Child Left Behind has had crippling effects on public education, but has profited GW Bush's brother Neil very well. After Neil was barred from banking following the Silverado debacle, he started Ignite Learning, a company that makes software that teaches schools how to take the comprehensive tests NCLB is all about. Similarly, the no-bid defense contracts that Halliburton enjoyed are an affront to free market sensibilities, especially when parts of those contracts cost 2-3 times what individual contractors would have charged. And don't even get me started on how fiscally irresponsible it was to deny Medicare the right to negotiate discounts on prescription drugs under the Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003.

 

To me, fiscal responsibility is all about efficiency and long-range effects. I hope we can find a Republican who actually follows the Republican platform so voters can at least feel represented by their party.

[JustinW]

To me, fiscal responsibility is all about efficiency and long-range effects. I hope we can find a Republican who actually follows the Republican platform so voters can at least feel represented by their party.

I dont' think that could have been said any better.

 

That's funny that you mentioned GE. I was just having a conversation about how they corner their markets by using the EPA and other environmental agencies. GE spends alot of it's efforts on environmental enginuity. Once they achieve a level far greater than the ability of their competitor ,they then go to the regulatory body and suggest that their level of quality set the standard. Which forces others out of the market for the lack of technology to achieve that level of standard. Sure the technology is there to learn and be used by others, but by that time GE is already at the head of the market. So do you think that their spin on taking an environmental stand point is about environment or buisness.

I've heard some wierd things about, GE such as their tax write -offs. It would be interesting to see how many taxes a company that large has to shell out.

Edited November 22, 2011 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

I've heard some wierd things about, GE such as their tax write -offs. It would be interesting to see how many taxes a company that large has to shell out.

Last year, they paid, let's see, add the 2, carry the 1... NOTHING! To be fair, they took advantage of every loophole and write-off the government allows, but as you said, how much influence do they have on legislating those write-offs and loopholes? That's a big reason why corporate influence in politics HAS to be severely restrained. They're messing around with free market competition, the Republican Holy Grail.

 

At the very least, I'd like to see some regs stating that a company that claims to be American and gets US tax advantages and incentives has to have at least 51% of it's work force in the US. That should fit right in with the Republican platform. In fact, it fits so well, you could propose it and watch all the Republican politicians who scream about it, knowing that those are the guys deep in the corporate pockets. Line those bastards up against the wall first.

[JohnB]

At the very least, I'd like to see some regs stating that a company that claims to be American and gets US tax advantages and incentives has to have at least 51% of it's work force in the US.

 

I'm not sure that would work too well. A resource company would have drilling rigs and mines all over the planet with only admin and sales in the US. I think you'd have to look at it industry by industry.

[JustinW]

I'm not sure that would work too well. A resource company would have drilling rigs and mines all over the planet with only admin and sales in the US. I think you'd have to look at it industry by industry.

The company I work for contracts to a resource company such as that. I don't know how far around the globe their reach is, but I bet it's pretty far. Still under Phi's 51% proposal they would have to pay a foreign tax and would not be able to influence U.S. law makers and regulatory agencies. I say that, but everybody knows that money talks and BS walks. Edited November 23, 2011 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

I'm not sure that would work too well. A resource company would have drilling rigs and mines all over the planet with only admin and sales in the US. I think you'd have to look at it industry by industry.

Perhaps. Or the incentives to bringing resources which will be used primarily in the US could offset the lost advantages for under-employment of US personnel.

 

I'm not sure I like that, though. It also bothers me that the Republican platform keystone is free market competition, while at the same time they lobby for special consideration and taxpayer subsidies for certain players in certain industries. Reagan allowed a small group of US sugar barons to clamp down on imports of cheap sugar, setting up a complicated loan program through the Dept of Agriculture that assures certain prices to them. Imports were half the market but now only account for 15%, with tariffs driving the price up over what US sugar sells for, which is twice what the rest of the world pays. In all, US consumers pay an extra $2B/year because of this subsidy. It benefits no one but a few players and the subsidies actually amount to paying extra taxes for the privilege of paying higher sugar prices. You can't even argue about the jobs the sugar industry creates, because keeping the system in place costs $826,000 for each sugar production job saved.

 

How on earth can that be considered anti-tax, pro-market or pro-consumer, Republicans? Who are you going to nominate to redress this atrocity against the market? Where's your messiah now?

[imatfaal]

/stating that I am not in agreement with the removal of barriers to all free trade and that I think the guiding hand of the market is a wizened old grasping claw and that neoclassical liberalism is not the solution ... but

 

Whilst the EU/ECC is not exactly the flavour of the month or a poster child for open markets, it does however show what open markets and free movement of goods, capital, and labour actually entails. If you spend any time studying the workings of the european internal market you realize how restricted by trade barrier sand restrictions that the rest of the world market is. Anything that allows a systematic or legal advantage of one producer in country A over another producer in country B will most of the time be deemed by the Commission/ECJ as a measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction - and will be overturned. It is a brutal system - but once within it one realises how many meqr there are around the world, in fact in every single import/export trade unseen and intangible tariffs and costs will be in operation. once the republicans/free-marketeers start getting rid of those then at least their actions will meet their philosophy. until then I would be happier if they were honest and admitted to be protectionist and insular