You seem to think that a party has to be “for” something new to be viable; I disagree. Conservatives in general are “for” what we already have, a country that rewards hard work, innovation, intelligence and risk taking,
Okay a civil and intelligent post. I appreciate this. So please no I mean no offense when I state the the Dems could claim the exact same thing, just as legitimately.
Thanks for not offending my delicate sensibilities. I don’t agree; the Dems want to “improve” things through more government. Some of us don’t think their idea of “improvement” is positive for the country, and prefer the systems already in place.
“against” vast new entitlement and social engineering programs that cater to the lowest common denominator, and "against” unbending loyalty to green energy or excessive new environmental and other regulatory burdens.
What are the "new" entitlement programs? What social engineering? I'd love to see us off oil completely but for Conservative, not Liberal reasons.
UmmmmÂ….Obamacare? Not a new entitlement?
So most are “for” a repeal of Obamacare, because it will cost a trillion dollars over the next ten years (at least, with $500 billion of new taxes).
That is what Repubs say. Dems say it will reduce the deficit. I'd like to see it repealed anyway though. But I think we do need SOMETHING as an alternative.
Whether or not it reduces the deficit is irrelevant. If I raise $1 trillion in taxes and spend 90% of it social programs, I can say that “reduces the deficit” by $100 billion. It doesn’t change the fact that you have still spent an additional $900 billion that either could have created wealth in the private sector or been paid directly against the debt.
That extra trillion dollars will come partly from Medicare (savings on fraud waste and abuse – right! Read: more deficit spending); taxes on medical insurance premiums (yes, for those of us who pay them), increased Medicare taxes on wages of higher income individuals and on investment income, and excise taxes on medical equipment and fees on pharmaceutical companies (which will be paid by medical insurance companies and, therefore, by those who pay for it), and the penalty on employers who choose not to offer health insurance (that should be good for business). And what will all that money buy?
A free ride for anyone who now does not find it “convenient” to pay for health insurance;
You don't think there are people out there who simply can't afford insurane premiums?
Those who truly canÂ’t afford it have Medicaid. If someone is not qualified for Medicaid because they make too much, then they just have not made it a priority.
redistribution on a massive scale.
There is always redistribution. It is just a matter of what direction or type of recipient benefits.
That’s a non-answer. Redistribution defined (dictionary.com) - Economics . the theory, policy, or practice of lessening or reducing inequalities in income through such measures as progressive income taxation and antipoverty programs. Therefore, by this definition it can only go one way – from producers to non-producers (or perhaps lesser producers) Redistribution is a fact of life in civilized society; all citizens must have what they need to survive. There’s a difference between that and providing cradle-to-grave entitlements.
Should we have a safety net? Yes. Should we be subsidizing those who would rather not pay for their own well being? No. And just to be clear, I am not against the mandate (assuming itÂ’s constitutional, which IÂ’m afraid it probably isnÂ’t); I think if we are going to run a health care system that denies no one care, it stands to reason that everyone will at some time in their lives end up using those services. A mandate is unnecessary if we simply deny services to those who canÂ’t pay, but that will never happen (and rightly so). Anyway, Obamacare will lead inexorably to government-dominated and finally government-run healthcare, resulting in the destruction of the most innovative and finest healthcare system on the planet. Please no stats from the UN claiming otherwise; the US system is profligate with resources and is THE place to be if you are suffering from a serious illness. Somewhat expensive, yes, but you will not wait for service nor suffer from lack of available physicians, medical equipment or hospital space.
I had government health care in the military. It was fine. Not one officer I knew bought private insurance and I know none of the enlisted men did. I've also lived in three countries that had government health care. None of the horror stories occured in my personal experience and I am not a quick to believe the media claims as some.
I didnÂ’t disparage any other countryÂ’s system, and people are usually happy with it right up to the time they need treatment for a complex or serious illness and are required to wait, sometimes with disastrous consequences. How often do you hear about that in the US? Also, these other countries benefit from the profitability of the American market; the onslaught of new drugs and therapies would drop to a trickle without the margins afforded them in this country.
Most are also “for” a reduction in statutory corporate income tax rates to enhance competitiveness; you can say that “no one pays the statutory rates”, but you would be incorrect. The largest corporations often can avoid them to some degree by making use of deductions and credits, but many are not available to the general mid-size business. In any case, those larger corporations are also the companies that are more easily able to offshore American jobs.
There is a flaw here but I think we're close in our thinking. I would do the opposite. Global Corporations (there really is no such thing as a big American company any more) pay an average of 15%. Many pay zero taxes. They don't ship jobs overseas because of taxes. Think about it. The tax rate in India is 33%. Do you think they move jobs there because of the tax rate or because there is virtually no regulation and th average wage is $2 a day? Think about that. So i would take away all their tax breaks and subsidies - BUT I would give them to companies that met two qualifications: 100% American employees and 100% of revenues reported and paid in the USA. Think about what THAT owuld do for the deficit and unemployment.
Global corporations pay varying rates depending on the markets they are in; I’m not sure where this “15%” figure comes from, but I don’t think it’s relevant without some idea of the mix of foreign and US earnings and taxable income. None incur “zero taxes”; that’s just a fallacy. Some pay zero taxes in given years due to deferral strategies and carryover losses from other years. Look at the “deferred tax” component of a profitable company’s financial statements; that’s where you’ll find the income tax expense to be paid in future years.
Now you say on the one hand, “They don't ship jobs overseas because of taxes”, and in the next line you say that tax breaks for qualified companies would be a boon for the deficit and unemployment. You can’t have it both ways; either taxes are a consideration or they are not.
I also am not a proponent of stopping US companies from penetrating foreign markets. Does anyone think Japan is unhappy that Toyota and Honda manufacture cars in the US? Why then should we be unhappy when GM and Caterpillar manufacture for the China market? Many of the more lucrative executive, engineering and design components required stay in the US, just as Japanese engineers benefit from Toyota and Honda.
Reduce the top rate to 25% (as Mitt has suggested), eliminate many of the “give away” deductions that have evolved over the years and let them all compete equally. Do the same with individual rates, or you will create an “accountants’ full employment act” to manipulate income from personal to corporate earnings. And for the record, most conservatives are “for” supporting our most productive citizens, not badgering them about “fair share” (to which there is never any limit) to support our least productive citizens. Again, safety net, yes; permanent entitlement, no.
Most are “for” exploiting our domestic resources to the fullest, fossil as well as alternative. “Against” cap and trade or other confiscatory policies; the environmental policies of the West have simply moved the pollution to low-wage foreign countries that care less about the environment and therefore do more damage, then send back the resulting products. That’s not a solution; it’s just a bigger problem. Solar and wind energy are fine, but they are not a solution; reliance on them will just lead to poverty and misery until and unless they are competitive in all ways with carbon-based fuels.
I am all for solar etc... and every technology I can think of, started out inefficient and expensive and then got better and cheaper. Hell, i remember having to pay for a cell phone the sie of a brick and I couldn't even go on the net with it. besides, I like anything that could possibly bankrupt the Middle East. 
)
ThatÂ’s true, thereÂ’s a time lag before a new technology is really commercially viable. But while that was happening, we kept our land-line phones and cellular was a novelty. The Dems would have us eliminate the land-lines while the cell phones are still bricks, or make the land-lines incredibly more expensive to make the cell phone more competitive. ThatÂ’s what they want to do with cap and trade and other excessive environmental policies.
Most, finally, are “for” smaller, smarter government. We have, what, three agencies of the federal government responsible for protecting salmon at different stages? That’s lunacy, and a sign of the truth of Reagan’s comment that “A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!” A government that gives us only what we need, not everything we want; a right-sized government that spends no more than it takes in (yes, a balanced budget amendment is the only way that will ever happen; pretty sure the Republican House took a vote on that) and expects and encourages its citizens to take care of their own problems. We have serious debt problems, and are careening toward a financial precipice. That’s enough for me not to vote “for” the policies of the liberals, no matter how reasonable their arguments may sound.
I have yet to see a Republican administration reduce the size of government. I mean, they always talk a good game but I don't recall any of them do it. Help me out with that one!
Well, I understand the Republican platform is to eliminate three major agencies from the outset: Commerce, Education, andÂ…Â…Â….ummmmmÂ…Â….IÂ’ll get back to you on the other one.
ItÂ’s true that government has yet to be downsized during my lifetime. However, given our current situation and the forces pulling at the Republican Party, I believe they are the most likely to reduce, or at least moderate the growth, of government. The Dems have shown that they have little interest in smaller government.
And, of course, because “Dems suck!”
But names have nothing to do with language as they are independent of rules.
