Top Priorities

[Foxfyre]

i think that this is the challenge for the american political system. we need to maintain the integrity of the parties which we have. our two parties have taken on several identities and causes over the years as a result of this.

it is possible for a ross perot to make a splash, but i feel that the way the government is set up is the reason why we have a two party system. the founders and subsequent lawmakers who created our congressional rules have biased them toward stronger majorities and party politics.

i feel a president independent from the parties in congress would just be ignored in his capacity to influence lawmaking. to gain that influence back, such a chief would have to have a strong ideological similarity with one of the parties and would likely have to coalesce on objectives of theirs. the appearance of boss which we associate with the prez is empowered by their relationship with congress on matters of policymaking.

I am going to gently disagree. I think a charismatic, articulate leader with strong convictions and ability to explain them would strike an accommodating chord with the 60 to 70+% of people who would respond to the poll in this thread as most USMB members have responded.

Such a leader, if he made the priorities of his administration to be fiscally responsible while leaving as many resources as possible with the people and private enterprise, who began the process of rolling back unsustainable entitlements in a way as to not break faith with those we have made dependent on them, who pushed for energy independence, a balanced budget, and respect for unalienable rights, would have the support of the large majority of Americans.

And the GOP and Democrats would have no choice but to help him get his agenda done if they wanted to keep their jobs. It might be the only way we will ever see true bipartisanship in our lifetime.

As long as he/she does everything you want, that is. C'mon, Foxy, there's really no wiggle room in your personal ideologies.

Since you have yet to correctly articulate what my personal ideologies are, I can only surmise you really have no clue about my personal ideologies, and you have absolutely no credibility in judging what wiggle room there is or is not.

 

[Sky Dancer]

No need to keep your personal ideologies a secret, Ff. You've stated you're a conservative, you lean right.

What's not on the list that's important to me is ending the war in Iraq and improving Middle Eastern foreign relations.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's true Sky. I am a proud conservative and I don't keep it a secret. But, the fact is, some really have no clue what that is or what that means and what they do think about it is very often wrong.

 

[Sky Dancer]

That's true Sky. I am a proud conservative and I don't keep it a secret. But, the fact is, some really have no clue what that is or what that means and what they do think about it is very often wrong.

What does it mean to you?

 

[MaggieMae]

Well this President has certainly promised legislation after legislation and doesn't even blink when he hasn't delivered. But anyway all a President can do lead and persuade Congress to deliver legislation to his desk to sign. On both counts this President has not been competent.

And there aren't really that many priorities there. There is really just one: being fiscally responsible, accountable, and productive, the one thing that this President has not even attempted to make a priority.

priority #1 is the economy and jobs. it is my impression that how the government pays off its credit cards has nothing to do with restoring my customer count to circa 2005 levels. while some americans might jump for joy that the government is taking self interested steps when the economy is underperforming, others will be upset.

at the moment, the tables are turned... that is, for you and those who want to see austerity from the government during an economic recovery. it is perceived by the rest of us that judgment from right of center with specific respect to the economy has lost the credibility which it had 30 years ago.

it might even occur to some that the same solutions might not fit with the dramatically different challenges the government and the economy are facing. for those folks amongst whom i count myself, a candidate like what you feel is ideal seems like he is out of touch with the top priority in your poll.

as far as obama goes, i don't get yours and spoonman's appraisal of his ineffectiveness. congress has ripped through many heavyweight legislations in the span of less than 2 years. i would say too much rather than not enough with regard to democratic lawmaking at the moment. the congress even passed a fiscal responsibility bill. it was a blur.

like you said, though: not a priority.

This week, C-Span's Washington Journal has been doing a five-part analysis of the financial reform bill and what effects it will have both on businesses and consumers. So far, the consensus has been among the experts who have dissected it is that it doesn't go far enough with installing new regulations to prevent the same kind of economic disaster that resulted from the banking/mortgage crisis.

 

[MaggieMae]

I am going to gently disagree. I think a charismatic, articulate leader with strong convictions and ability to explain them would strike an accommodating chord with the 60 to 70+% of people who would respond to the poll in this thread as most USMB members have responded.

Such a leader, if he made the priorities of his administration to be fiscally responsible while leaving as many resources as possible with the people and private enterprise, who began the process of rolling back unsustainable entitlements in a way as to not break faith with those we have made dependent on them, who pushed for energy independence, a balanced budget, and respect for unalienable rights, would have the support of the large majority of Americans.

And the GOP and Democrats would have no choice but to help him get his agenda done if they wanted to keep their jobs. It might be the only way we will ever see true bipartisanship in our lifetime.

As long as he/she does everything you want, that is. C'mon, Foxy, there's really no wiggle room in your personal ideologies.

Since you have yet to correctly articulate what my personal ideologies are, I can only surmise you really have no clue about my personal ideologies, and you have absolutely no credibility in judging what wiggle room there is or is not.

Why should I articulate what your personal ideologies are when you do an excellent job of explaining them yourself? But to summarize, you are 100% pro business, regardless how damaging business models might affect consumers. They should be given carte blanche permission to do whatever they want, with no government regulation or oversight. It's the Randian way.

 

[Spoonman]

That's true Sky. I am a proud conservative and I don't keep it a secret. But, the fact is, some really have no clue what that is or what that means and what they do think about it is very often wrong.

What does it mean to you?

To me it means being right (as in correct)

 

[Foxfyre]

That's true Sky. I am a proud conservative and I don't keep it a secret. But, the fact is, some really have no clue what that is or what that means and what they do think about it is very often wrong.

What does it mean to you?

To me it means being right (as in correct)

Well if we didn't believe it was more right (as in correct) than wrong, we wouldn't embrace the ideology would we.

Maggie says that I do a good job of explaining what conservatism as I embrace it as an ideology is, but I apparently don't as she has yet to understand what has been said and has yet to represent it accurately.

And Sky, I'll just refer you to all the many MANY other times that I and other conservatives have explained it. I honestly think many liberals don't or can't understand or they just don't want to, because the explanations consistently fall on deaf ears. And there comes a time to give up trying.

 

[Spoonman]

What does it mean to you?

To me it means being right (as in correct)

Well if we didn't believe it was more right (as in correct) than wrong, we wouldn't embrace the ideology would we.

Maggie says that I do a good job of explaining what conservatism as I embrace it as an ideology is, but I apparently don't as she has yet to understand what has been said and has yet to represent it accurately.

And Sky, I'll just refer you to all the many MANY other times that I and other conservatives have explained it. I honestly think many liberals don't or can't understand or they just don't want to, because the explanations consistently fall on deaf ears. And there comes a time to give up trying.

My political ideals tend towards conservative. Keep money in the hands of people who reinvest and produce. I beleive in trickle down economics. I am all for a small government with minimal intrusion in our lives. I am for a strong military and investment in technology. I have very strong religious beliefs and values but I do not believe religion should be forced on anyone. Conversely I do not believe government should be so quick to turn it's back on the importance of religion and the values associated. I believe the Warren Court was wrong. I think America needs to adopt a policy of America first and hen worry about the rest of the world. I do not believe we should be the worlds police but should not turn our backs on those who ask for help. If you ask for help, don't expect to tell us how to go about it. Strong security starts at home. Tighten our borders. You want cheap labor, offer more work visas. Minimize entitlement programs. They are nothing more than crutches. Amend the 24th amendment. You must be a citizen or here legally for your child to be a citizen. Kill political correctness in its tracks.

 

[Foxfyre]

While all conservatives don't embrace every point on your list, Spoonman, all definitely can fit easily within a broad conservative ideology. Good job.

Meanwhile, in gleanings from my daily e-mail was a telling letter written by a New Jersey businessman and is excerpted here entitled WHY I AM NOT HIRING:

. . . .(Sally has) been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay. . . .

. . . .Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage; my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.

Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too. . . .

So with looming increased taxes due to expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012 and with the uncertainties of new taxes imposed for mandatory healthcare and Cap & Trade plus so many other spending initiatives still in the works, it is little wonder that employers are not willing to hire.

And today we received news that joblessness dramatically increased for the third straight week to the highest level in nine months.

But our fearless leaders tell us: The stimulus is working.

The priorities are obviously all wrong.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Skydancer. If you have 30 min to listen to this video you will gain a greater understanding of how conservative minds think.

You can play it in the background while you post if you want.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY&feature=related]YouTube - "A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan[/ame]

 

[MaggieMae]

What does it mean to you?

To me it means being right (as in correct)

Well if we didn't believe it was more right (as in correct) than wrong, we wouldn't embrace the ideology would we.

Maggie says that I do a good job of explaining what conservatism as I embrace it as an ideology is, but I apparently don't as she has yet to understand what has been said and has yet to represent it accurately.

And Sky, I'll just refer you to all the many MANY other times that I and other conservatives have explained it. I honestly think many liberals don't or can't understand or they just don't want to, because the explanations consistently fall on deaf ears. And there comes a time to give up trying.

I understand conservatism perfectly. I also understand liberalism perfectly. What I understand best of all is that in order to form a perfect union (as perfect as it can ever be, that is), a little of both need to actually WORK in tandem--not just theorize over what should work. This is 2010, not 1981, and especially not 1789. What worked then does not necessarily mean it will work the same now, and we've certainly seen plenty of evidence of that.

You are NOT always right, and I am NOT always wrong; and vice versa.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are certain universal truths that are true whether in the time of Alexander the Great or Constantine or medieval Europe or the 18th century or now.

One universal truth is that when something has received failing marks wherever and whenever it has been tried throughout history, it is really stupid to think that it will be any different to do it in 2010.

If you took time to listen to that Reagan speech Pilgrim posted, a whole lot can be learned re that concept.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There are certain universal truths that are true whether in the time of Alexander the Great or Constantine or medieval Europe or the 18th century or now.

One universal truth is that when something has received failing marks wherever and whenever it has been tried throughout history, it is really stupid to think that it will be any different to do it in 2010.

If you took time to listen to that Reagan speech Pilgrim posted, a whole lot can be learned re that concept.

I had it playing in the background as I was posting and I can't even count the number of times I thought "thats happening now, yup the governmnet is making that mistake AGAIN, uh huh I sure should have that freedom".

 

[MaggieMae]

While all conservatives don't embrace every point on your list, Spoonman, all definitely can fit easily within a broad conservative ideology. Good job.

Meanwhile, in gleanings from my daily e-mail was a telling letter written by a New Jersey businessman and is excerpted here entitled WHY I AM NOT HIRING:

. . . .(Sally has) been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay. . . .

. . . .Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage; my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.

Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too. . . .

So with looming increased taxes due to expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012 and with the uncertainties of new taxes imposed for mandatory healthcare and Cap & Trade plus so many other spending initiatives still in the works, it is little wonder that employers are not willing to hire.

And today we received news that joblessness dramatically increased for the third straight week to the highest level in nine months.

But our fearless leaders tell us: The stimulus is working.

The priorities are obviously all wrong.

Poor Sally. Thank God I never worked for such an organization who blamed ME for my contributions to its success. Almost all of the expenses involved in keeping her employed can be deducted from her greedy employer's taxes. He forgot to mention that.

This brief article describes tax deductions available for small businesses:

Top Tax Deductions for Your Small Business - Free Legal Information - Nolo

^They include:

AUTOMOBILE EXPENSES
BOOKS, LEGAL, PROESSIONAL FEES
BAD DEBT
BUSINESS ENTERTAINING
TRAVEL
INTEREST PAID
NEW EQUIPMENT
MOVING EXPENSES
NEW SOFTWARE
CHARITABLE
EDUCATION EXPENSES
ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION

TAXES:

Taxes incurred in operating your business are generally deductible. How and when they are deducted depends on the type of tax:

Sales tax on items you buy for your business's day-to-day operations is deductible as part of the cost of the items; it's not deducted separately. However, tax on a big business asset, such as a car, must be added to the car's cost basis; it isn't deductible entirely in the year the car was bought.

Excise and fuel taxes are separately deductible expenses.

If your business pays employment taxes, the employer's share is deductible as a business expense. Self-employment tax is paid by individuals, not their businesses, and so isn't a business expense.

Federal income tax paid on business income is never deductible. State income tax can be deducted on your federal return as an itemized deduction, not as a business expense.
Real estate tax on property used for business is deductible, along with any special local assessments for repairs or maintenance. If the assessment is for an improvement -- for example, to build a sidewalk -- it isn't immediately deductible; instead, it is deducted over a period of years.

And some commonly missed expense items:

audiotapes and videotapes related to business skills
bank service charges
business association dues
business gifts
business-related magazines and books
casual labor and tips
casualty and theft losses
coffee and beverage service
commissions
consultant fees
credit bureau fees
office supplies
online computer services related to business
parking and meters
petty cash funds
postage
promotion and publicity
seminars and trade shows
taxi and bus fare
telephone calls away from the business

 

[Greenbeard]

Meanwhile, in gleanings from my daily e-mail was a telling letter written by a New Jersey businessman and is excerpted here entitled WHY I AM NOT HIRING:

Meh, this one's been done.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm pretty damn good with taxes and did the accounting for our small business. And I'm pretty sure that we didn't overlook a single deduction we could take off the gross before we had to pay taxes on the remainder. (A whole bunch of the deductible items, however, we paid various other taxes on them when we bought them.)

Net result: we paid probably 15-20% more in taxes as small business owners than we would have paid if we were working for wages. And we paid for all our benefits out of our own pockets--nobody furnished them to us.

So again Maggie, you simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The following is just a fraction of the taxes we pay and it is noteworthy that almost none of these existed 100 years ago when the Federal and state budgets were balanced and the U.S. citizens were the most free, most productive, most innovative, most creative, and becoming the most prosperous people in the world:

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines
(indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax
(FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
(42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense
(tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges
(tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties
(tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes
(Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax
(SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and
local surcharge taxes
Telephone mi nimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines
(indirect taxation)
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

 

[antagon]

Well this President has certainly promised legislation after legislation and doesn't even blink when he hasn't delivered. But anyway all a President can do lead and persuade Congress to deliver legislation to his desk to sign. On both counts this President has not been competent.

And there aren't really that many priorities there. There is really just one: being fiscally responsible, accountable, and productive, the one thing that this President has not even attempted to make a priority.

priority #1 is the economy and jobs. it is my impression that how the government pays off its credit cards has nothing to do with restoring my customer count to circa 2005 levels. while some americans might jump for joy that the government is taking self interested steps when the economy is underperforming, others will be upset.

at the moment, the tables are turned... that is, for you and those who want to see austerity from the government during an economic recovery. it is perceived by the rest of us that judgment from right of center with specific respect to the economy has lost the credibility which it had 30 years ago.

it might even occur to some that the same solutions might not fit with the dramatically different challenges the government and the economy are facing. for those folks amongst whom i count myself, a candidate like what you feel is ideal seems like he is out of touch with the top priority in your poll.

as far as obama goes, i don't get yours and spoonman's appraisal of his ineffectiveness. congress has ripped through many heavyweight legislations in the span of less than 2 years. i would say too much rather than not enough with regard to democratic lawmaking at the moment. the congress even passed a fiscal responsibility bill. it was a blur.

like you said, though: not a priority.

This week, C-Span's Washington Journal has been doing a five-part analysis of the financial reform bill and what effects it will have both on businesses and consumers. So far, the consensus has been among the experts who have dissected it is that it doesn't go far enough with installing new regulations to prevent the same kind of economic disaster that resulted from the banking/mortgage crisis.

i'll bet this is because installing enough 'new regulations to prevent the same kind of economic disaster that resulted from the banking/mortgage crisis' would cause a mortgage and banking crisis in and of itself. that would be like outlawing punching in boxing matches to mitigate head injuries. furthermore, the government doesn't have to be the only player considering risk. the idea is that risk is recognized and quantified in the market itself. that's where the money's at.

there will be another bust over financial services - for certain, but that will be because we are the financial services and commodities hub of the world still. there are other countries vying for that top position, and over-regulation will play right into their competitive advantage.

 

[MaggieMae]

There are certain universal truths that are true whether in the time of Alexander the Great or Constantine or medieval Europe or the 18th century or now.

One universal truth is that when something has received failing marks wherever and whenever it has been tried throughout history, it is really stupid to think that it will be any different to do it in 2010.

If you took time to listen to that Reagan speech Pilgrim posted, a whole lot can be learned re that concept.

So you're saying that since time immemorial, the conservative ideology has never failed at anything. Gotcha.

As for the Reagan speech, sure, he always said the "right" thing to bring tears to the eyes of patriotic Americans. But he was also making a pitch for war. I do wonder what happened to the model for future conservatives who would treat their employees so generously, such as the one Reagan described in the speech. (I assume he was talking about Goldwater, with this story.) I think Henry Ford also believed that a strong workforce meant strong product and strong profit, and he kept his employees happy. So much for 'modern' conservatism, however.

From the speech:

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

 

[antagon]

100 years ago when the Federal and state budgets were balanced and the U.S. citizens were the most free, most productive, most innovative, most creative....

i am convinced that you're underinformed about the history of the US by virtue of this statement, foxfyre.