Posted by
CKHustler on Monday, March 15, 2010 7:56:47 PM
Couple things on my mind.
The Tea Party Express backed Scott Brown on what seems like brand rather than principle. He wasn't exactly a staunch conservative, even though he was much better than the democrat in the race. Why did the Tea Party Express endorse him? The way I see it, the Republican brand has tried to create this "big tent" atmosphere and it has backfired. Instead of gaining popularity, they lost their base while losing those they were trying to win with the strategy. The Tea Party Express should be a beacon of conservative values and not focused on Republican victories. When I first saw their endorsement I thought, "he must be a true conservative", but now I see he is not. My view of the Tea Party Express is now tainted by their choice. The only way this movement can continue to gain strength is for those involved to stick to principle above all else.
Incentive is what drives the capitalist system. Greed may be what some call it, but whatever it is called, without greed capitalism cannot work. This can be seen in all socialist countries where they still have social freedoms to choose their careers, but lack the financial freedoms found in our capitalist system (or what freedoms we used to have). Our per capita is higher than nearly all countries, including all highly populated countries. Our living standards are incredible compared to even that of western Europe, which is supposed to be what socialists over here want to emulate. This can also be implemented in politics. The way I see it, we need to remove the incentive behind lobbyists and bribery. One idea is for terms to be extended to 3, 6 and 9 years rather than 2, 4 and 6, but then set one term limits. Just an idea, nothing more, perhaps you have a better one? In the end it comes down to finding a way to remove the incentive for these politicians to vote special interests over the people.
Why do I always hear that raising taxes will raise more money? I think the end result of taxes is fairly simple, even if our tax code is ridiculous. Last time we lowered taxes (or the last 3 times if you include Kennedy and Reagan) our revenue went up. How is that possible? First, fewer people obfuscate the law and pay the taxes because they are not as harmful as higher taxes. Second, people now have more money to spend. By spending, the company they gave the money to now has more money to spend, etc etc, and the economy is now turning over money at a faster rate. Simply put, more economic growth. With that in mind, can we continually lower taxes and gain more revenue? No. Obviously at 100% we will gain no revenue either, as people have no money to spend and the economy eventually comes to a halt. This leaves me with one logical conclusion, tax revenue is based on a bell shaped curve (roughly). Sure there may be more than one peak, but it roughly forms a bell shape I believe. Both 0% and 100% are set to 0 revenue. A peak must fall between the two and if we lowered taxes and gained more revenue, why are we not lowering taxes again? We should be lowering taxes at least until we start losing revenue, which would reveal a peak tax percentage. This is of course if our goal is for the government to collect as much in taxes as possible (the liberal point of view). In my opinion, we should continue to lower taxes until the government can only do those things which are stated in the Constitution, but thats just me.
How do you treat your dog? Do you take care of it? Feed it? Bathe it? Cut their hair, or have it cut? (If they have hair) Do you take it on walks? Take it to the vet? Etc etc. All in all, what does your control over your dog sound similar to? Your dog has guaranteed housing, food, healthcare, sanitation...oh and did I mention it is free for them? This sounds an awful lot like Pelosi's dream economy. Imagine an economy where your dog doesn't have to worry about losing their job for fear of losing their healthcare. Now, would you rather live like your dog? They are confined to your house or land. They cannot choose when they are bathed. They are given only the type of food you choose to give to them. If it costs too much to bring them to the vet for a health problem, you may choose to put them down. To top that off, if their owner chooses not to feed them, or bathe them or bring them to the vet, tough luck, they have no choice. The difference between living like conservatives want and as progressives want really comes down to whether you would rather live like yourself or your dog.