Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, August 2, 2012

The Answer Is ...

Free Enterprise

by Sam Huntington

In keeping with AOW’s policy of posting periodic up-beat posts … even when NOAA tells us the sky is falling, here’s some good news.

o Producing 21% of the world’s manufactured goods, the United States remains the world’s leader in manufacturing. About one in six US jobs within the private sector comes from US manufacturing, about 17 million workers. China comes in second at 15.4%...

o International firms remain interested in building industrial plants in the United States. BMW and Airbus are both opening new facilities in right-to-work states; this means that unions cannot force workers to join unions. It also means that with less money going to corrupt union officials, the less opportunity unions have for corruption and un-American activities.

o US based multi-national corporations employ twenty-two million Americans, which is more than they employ in China, Mexico, and all other nations combined.

o Foreign owned multinational corporations employ 5.8 million Americans. This means that large numbers of jobs are not going overseas —no matter what the left will tell you.

o In-sourced jobs are those brought to the United States by foreign-based companies. These account for nearly five percent of private-sector employment. These companies purchase more than $1.8 trillion in goods and services from local suppliers and small businesses in areas where they operate.

But we still have above 8% unemployment; our country needs to do more. Amazingly, after creating the so-called jobs council, Mr. Obama hasn’t attended one of those meetings for over 8 months, but this does make perfect sense: one cannot campaign for reelection and serve as president at the same time. Nevertheless, there are some things the federal government can do to create a healthy environment supporting free enterprise. I know —this isn’t exactly what Obama promised in 2008 … but stay with us for a few minutes.

Where will we find the world’s most robust economy? According to the Index of Economic Freedom, it is Hong Kong. Its economy is increasing 7% annually. This is good, especially when compared to the United States whose 2012 second quarter growth rate was a dismal 1.5%.

Why is there such a large disparity between Hong Kong and the United States? We’re glad you asked. Hong Kong has a corporate tax rate of 16.5% —compared to 35% in the United States. Hong Kong has a regulatory environment supporting business efficiency; here in America, government regulation is strangling the free-enterprise system. Don’t be angry; Obama did tell us that is what he intended to do. The American government spends more than it produces in revenues. Even as onerous as our tax rate is, the problem isn’t taxes. It is spending, and it is increasing our debt. In 2011, foreign investment in US treasury bonds came to $400 billion. Much of the money raised went to hiring government employees, which leaves us scratching our heads. Government employees detract from, rather than add to the US economy.

If our readers enjoy the sharp spiral into an economic abyss, then we think what you should do is run to your voting precinct in early November and vote to reelect Barack Obama. He does, after all, have a peculiar genius for ruining … er, running a country. Plan B involves moving to Hong Kong where the word “stimulus” originates from free enterprise, and not from the pocketbooks of hardworking taxpayers.

57 comments:

  1. It has been shown over and over that when the taxes on the wealthiest are at the highest, the economy thrives. Even Reagan knew this. He raised them 11 times.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

    For the remainder of his time in office, Reagan repeatedly raised taxes to bring down unwieldy deficits. In 1983, he hiked gas and payroll taxes. In 1984, he raised revenue by closing tax loopholes for businesses. The tax reform of 1986 lowered the top rate for the wealthy to just 28 percent – but that cut for high earners was paid for by closing tax loopholes that resulted in the largest corporate tax hike in history. Reagan also raised revenues by abolishing special favors for the investor class: He boosted taxes on capital gains by 40 percent to align them with the taxes paid on wages. Today, Reagan may be lionized as a tax abolitionist, says Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator and friend of the president, but that's not true to his record. "Reagan raised taxes 11 times in eight years!"

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109#ixzz22OJsTreb

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Romney’s corporate tax proposal would lower the top rate to 25 percent from 35 percent and give U.S.-based companies lighter taxes on income they earn outside the country. He hasn’t specified what corporate tax breaks, if any, would be curtailed to cover the cost of the lost revenue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Most corporations don't pay 35%. They take advantage of tax breaks, write offs and loop holes.

    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/708495/original.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  6. AOW: There's a long brown streak in the comments section above this comment.

    I think it was made by an ignorant person who doesn't understand the concept of tax reform and who instead ingests red propaganda and turns it into BS.

    This ignoramus also doesn't realize that billions are wasted chasing those tax loopholes, and he certainly knows nothing about tax rates, since Kennedy and Reagan lowered taxes and produced huge economic booms.

    Anyway, just thought I'd provide some disinfectant and a little bit of mopping.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Littleman: "Over and over again?" Give us examples?

    Reagan's "tax increases" were part of a larger tax reform that slashed loopholes and greatly lowered all marginal rates, including expanding the earned income tax credit to the poor.

    So, professor, provide historical examples to back you statement of how tax increases made the economy thrive "over and over again."

    The only example you can cite is post WWII, and the only reason government got by with high taxation is because the global economy was moribund and we had no economic competitors. We dictated terms to the rest of the world and the people being taxed had nowhere else to go, so you can take that phony example off the table.

    ReplyDelete
  8. An excellent post, Sam. Romney is talking reducing corporate tax rates to 35%. He needs to be bolder. 15% or less plus he should fire the entire EPA bureaucracy and rolll back regulations to January 1, 1980 and then as Gingrich suggested crate an Envirinmental Solutions Agency. The whole world would want to invesin America.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just when we think liberal man couldn't possibly get any dumber, he shows up and proves us wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm not going to say that your analysis is shallow, Sam but it does lack depth.

    Hong Kong Economics

    "But with conditions for the poor on the island now worse, for the first time, than in many mainland cities ..."

    But I suspect they deserve it for not being able to profit from the real estate bubble. Have to make do with a few bucks from the sweat shop.

    Or we could use Macau as an example. GDP is rising like mad as mobbed up filth like Sheldon Adelson build gambling meccas (a growth industry in Las Vegas, just listen to Steve Wynn whine) and try to buy elections.

    How much of our manufacturing is arms? Just curious. Must take a creative foreign policy to keep that industry humming. Nothing is better for this economy than a beef with Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey yes let's just tax ourselves into prosperity-WHOOPEE!!!

    I wrote the following on another blog* last week in response to "The Democrat Cycle of Stupidity" which was a flow chart exibiting the absurdity of over taxation. I think it fits here, as well.


    "The Democrat Cycle of Stupidity" reminds me of something we studied in Economics called the "Death Spiral", as applied to private sector business. Basically it's about raising prices, when gross income is low, to increase it. When that doesn't bring in the expected income, raise the prices again. Of course, at some point sales will come to a halt and the business will fail. Now, what if that business had made some cuts, lowered its prices and sales would have increased? The business may have survived. All too often politicians take the "Death Spiral" approach with taxes when they raise them to pay for all of the money that they borrow and print; often to buy votes from the ignorant. By increasing taxes on the most productive sectors, real capital is diminished and the very base that is being eaten by taxes shrinks (see the Laffer Curve**) then the entire Economy suffers, insidiously. Our present Administration has been and continues to be a grand example of this. First he borrows*** and prints money for which no real value exists. Then he throws it all down on non productive fantasies, creates inflation, commits generational theft and business uncertainly while unemployment soars and then has the gall to expect the 53% who pay taxes on what they EARN to bail him out. And what is his solution to what may be the worst economic situation in our history? MORE OF SAME!!!!!!!!!!

    * http://marine4ever-imnotdrinkingthekoolaid.blogspot.com/

    **http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2012/04/15/the-laffer-curve-shows-that-tax-increases-are-a-very-bad-idea-even-if-they-generate-more-tax-revenue/2/

    (sorry about the ad)

    *** This Administration has added > $5,000,000,000,000 to the National Debt-a >50% increase over the entire sum accumulated since the founding of the Republic.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Silver,
    Mrs. AOW just got home and has to restart her computer. Server down.

    I have told her about the "brown streak"! She may come along and do some flushing!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Duck,
    That first sentence from you is contradictory! Are you molting?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Liberalmann said:

    It has been shown over and over that when the taxes on the wealthiest are at the highest, the economy thrives. Even Reagan knew this. He raised them 11 times.

    Is that so? See from National Review:

    ...Rather than raising the capital-gains tax on successful investors or punishing wealthy people — which are Obama’s priorities — Reagan wanted full-bore pro-growth tax reform that would slash rates for everyone, simplify the tax system with only two brackets, and eliminate tax shelters that allowed people to avoid paying any taxes at all....

    And THIS from the WaPo:

    ...Reagan was pushing for a tax cut for everyone, not just an increase on a few....

    ReplyDelete
  15. How much of our manufacturing is arms? Just curious. Must take a creative foreign policy to keep that industry humming. Nothing is better for this economy than a beef with Iran.

    It is customary in democratic countries to deplore expenditures on armaments as conflicting with the requirements of social services. There is a tendency to forget the most important social service a government can do for its people is to keep them alive and free. —Sir John Slessor

    Technological development and innovation explains how nations achieve and then maintain a dominant role in world politics. This is not a trivial notion and not subject to the rather inane contention that we can all be happier living in Utopia. Utopia only exists in the minds of those suffering from cerebral hypoxia. When national policy dictates the pursuit of military superiority, then a healthy relationship between government, military, and industries makes sense.

    The MIC provides us with an interesting relationship, in which taxpayers fund the development of armaments and technology. These resources are then funneled to defense industries, which hire Americans for their particular expertise in producing military technology. Many of these are monopolies simply because not every widget company is able to produce a Sidewinder missile. Defense industries deliver their product to the military services, and they in turn safeguard the nation to pursue its national goals and policies. In our case, that should be free market capitalism. We must also acknowledge the defense industries for many technological innovations that enhance the private sector. The list of these technologies is too long to list here.

    Mr. Obama now seeks to dismantle this complex relationship, arguing that the costs far outweigh the benefits. His is the minority view. There are those who argue that the issue isn’t spending, per se, but rather on the allocation of resources. Defense spending is constitutional, where as spending funds within the Health and Human Services matrix is not. Nevertheless, Mr. Obama’s decision to increase spending within HHS will certainly propel millions of welfare recipients to the ballot box favoring Mr. Obama. Herein lays the primary problem with the way things are done inside the beltway.

    Should the US consider curtailing defense spending? Perhaps. We can argue that the F-22 Raptor is sufficient for now, and delay development of the F-35 Joint Strike aircraft. The problem is that when Obama closes the doors to our defense industries, when all employees have lost their jobs … many of these industries will not be coming back later on. It is not an expertise we can easily duplicate, if at all. Will an additional one million unemployed Americans hurt, or help our flagging economy? Will a full one percent increase in the unemployment rate help, or hurt Barack Obama?

    Here is where we find the insidiousness of Chicago politics, Mr. Obama’s sleight of hand, exacerbated by beltway banditry. Someone more skeptical than I might conclude Obama is doing this intentionally; his behavior does cause us to wonder; not even the communist Leon Panetta wants to see fewer ships in the navy than there are admirals. Mr. Obama intends to delay notifying defense industries that he's cancelling their contracts until after the 6 November election. If he can do that in contravention to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, then he successfully foods tens of thousands of union workers in critical states to think their jobs are safe under Barack Obama.

    Mr. Obama is actually adept at fooling the American people —most of whom enjoy the rough sex of Chicago politics. He is almost as good at this as Ducky, who prefers changing the subject to Hong Kong boat people, rather than discussing a positive free market environment.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Obama/Romney Tax Calculator:

    http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator?source=taxcalculator-20120802-hp

    ReplyDelete
  17. "It has been shown over and over that when the taxes on the wealthiest are at the highest, the economy thrives."

    This guy must be an alumnus of the Alfred E. Neuman School Of Economics.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Liberalmann,
    Difficult though it may be, please try to wrap your mind around the following in the body of the blog post:

    Even as onerous as our tax rate is, the problem isn’t taxes. It is spending, and it is increasing our debt.

    A household cannot stand beyond a certain point of continued spending and over-the-top debt that continues to mount. "We owe it to ourselves" doesn't last forever and, at some point, leads to going belly up.

    Perhaps you yourself have never run a household on a budget?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jon,
    Hehehe. I think that you've uncovered Liberalmann's alma mater.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Related and possibly of interest over at Conservatives on Fire:

    "Equalizing Outcomes _ Obama Style _ Think Sustainable Living ala Agenda 21"

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh but John Kerry would not like your positive post. Today he says that climate change is more of a threat than Iran.


    Or something like that

    Debbie
    Right Truth
    http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

    ReplyDelete
  22. Coming from a place that actually does have high taxes, for my part is really does not matter. It is the total package that counts and that means salaries, taxes paid, benefits given, services provided and the net results of CPI, growth, interest rates, consumer confidence and currency exchanges.

    Just arguing "no more taxes", in my honest opinion, is meaningless if all the other factors are out of sync. It is the right balance of all that will either work or not.

    I do agree with Sam that it is private enterprise that has and will make America strong, it always has. Mind you that is as far as I will support Sam considering that if you mention gun-control as an opinion his response is "stuff you".

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  23. Always On Watch said..."Liberalmann,
    Difficult though it may be, please try to wrap your mind around the following in the body of the blog post:

    Even as onerous as our tax rate is, the problem isn’t taxes. It is spending, and it is increasing our debt."
    --------------

    Yup, and Obama has decreased spending:


    Government Spending Decreased Under Obama:

    To hear Republicans tell it, President Obama has gone on a massive spending spree, sending government spending skyrocketing and the debt into the stratosphere. And now, a word from reality. Federal spending has gone up slightly under Obama — much slower than under Bush in his first four years — but overall government spending has actually gone down — something that hasn’t happened in four decades.

    FOR the first time in 40 years, the government sector of the American economy has shrunk during the first three years of a presidential administration.

    Spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, has risen at a slow rate under President Obama. But that increase has been more than offset by a fall in spending by state and local governments, which have been squeezed by weak tax receipts.

    In the first quarter of this year, the real gross domestic product for the government — including state and local governments as well as federal — was 2 percent lower than it was three years earlier, when Barack Obama took office in early 2009.

    The last time the government actually got smaller over the first three years of a presidential term was when Richard M. Nixon was president. That decrease was largely because of declining spending on the Vietnam War....

    http://freethoughtblogs.com
    /dispatches/2012/05/09/government-spending-decreased-under-obama/


    Government Getting Smaller in the U.S.:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/business/economy/government-is-getting-smaller-in-the-us-off-the-charts.html?_r=2

    ReplyDelete
  24. There is no need to exaggerate, Damien. Our only problem with you is that you are an insufferable bore. If you do not enjoy having someone tell you to “get stuffed,” then don’t come here and insult our guests or the lady who owns this blog. It is possible to differ without claiming that those who disagree with you are stupid. We will delete further comments out of hand if you persist in your ill-mannered behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @ Damien Charles --
    As you sit on your terrace that overlooks 17kms away the North African country of Morocco, I would suggest to you that you peddle your peaches on your side of the street and we'll take care of our side of the street.

    I would also remind you that somewhere in Kenya, there's a village that's lost its idiot. We have him and will be more than happy to return him to you.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I don't know how you go out there and make a statement like that without any facts," Boehner said. "It's one of the problems that occurs here in Washington, people run out there without any facts and just make noise. The American people are too smart for this, they'll get to the bottom of this, it clearly is not a fact, and I would think that the Senate majority leader would be smart enough to know that."

    My question is, why would Boehner think that? Hasn't he ever been to this blog and read Liberalmann's comments?

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ Marine4ever

    " ... somewhere in Kenya, there's a village that's lost its idiot. We have him and will be more than happy to return him to you."

    Outstanding!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sam,

    Although I'm new here I've been blogging for quite awhile on several sites. One thing that I've noticed as sort of a common denominator and that's that Liberals seldom demonstrate much in the way of common sense. What they lack in common sense they try to compensate for with condescension and arrogance. As with all sites there are some here. Most Liberals seem to be chronically disgruntled.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jon wrote, “Liberals seldom demonstrate much in the way of common sense. What they lack in common sense they try to compensate for with condescension and arrogance.”

    I think we can define “liberal” in two ways. The first, classic liberalism, defines who our forefathers were. They gave us the framework for a moral nation, although not one without sin. The other is neo-liberalism; people who like to think of themselves as progressive. They call themselves progressive because they lack the stomach for identifying who they really are: communists.

    We must conclude that these so-called progressives only feign arrogance. An arrogant person is able to lay some claim to superior intellect, knowledge, or experience; this in no way describes any progressive with whom I have ever spoken. Rather than arrogant, they are simply obnoxious.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mustang,

    "The other is neo-liberalism"

    Rest assured that this is what I referred to. However, I completely refuse to dignify Liberals by corrupting the word "progressive" which, in reality, is antithetical to everything that they are about.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I agree, Jon. Given the history of the communist movement, who but a complete idiot would identify with it? So they made up a name for themselves to make it sound less offensive … you know, like “gay.” A rose by any other name is still arose.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Great post, Sam. You are right that regulation is strangling our economy. It didn't start with Obama but it has reached absurd levels under the Pretender-in-Chief.

    It's worth noting that other economies are far worse than ours. Spain? Italy? Greece? Still glad to be an American!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Marine4ever said...
    @ Damien Charles --
    I would also remind you that somewhere in Kenya, there's a village that's lost its idiot. We have him and will be more than happy to return him to you."

    Marine...BEAUTIFUL!

    JonBerg....you might be new to the blogs, but you learned what's going on REAL FAST. You won't believe some of the stuff the Libs come up with (like Republicans are richer, which is absolutely not true...even tho they are statistically higher in charity giving)..... ENJOY!

    SAM...EXCELLENT POST. Just excellent...as usual

    ReplyDelete
  34. Given the fact that euphemisms, at best, only temporarily mask the offensivness they need to change pierodically. I can't begin to guess what will replace "progressive".

    I've often thought that if termites had cognition they might consider themselves "progressives" as they totally consume your house!

    ReplyDelete
  35. @ JonBerg --
    "...let's just tax ourselves into prosperity..."

    That reminds me of what an old rancher once told me -- "Tryin' to tax ourselves outta a recession is like me tryin' to feed my way outta a drought."

    I've tried to hang around old ranchers most of my life; they can teach you a lot of interesting stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  36. M4e,

    "I've tried to hang around old ranchers most of my life; they can teach you a lot of interesting stuff"

    Yes, a #e!! of a lot more than Paul Krugman!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Duck,
    That first sentence from you is contradictory! Are you molting?

    --------
    My bad, I keep forgetting that right wingers are irony and sarcasm challenged.

    ReplyDelete
  38. That reminds me of what an old rancher once told me -- "Tryin' to tax ourselves outta a recession is like me tryin' to feed my way outta a drought."

    ---------
    Yeah, just ask those corn farming welfare queens who are getting Federally subsidized insurance to cover the loss of their crops.

    Biggest welfare queens on the planet outside of Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Sam,

    I suggest you go back through all my postings and point out rudness on my part.

    What I do is bite, that is for sure. I provoke and question why some comments are made. Also I fully admit to having no tolerance to childish comments. I will even call someone silly, pedant or even pathetic.

    Having said that, my comments have been and always will be my own and I do not demand that others follow mine.

    Now go and look at others. In the last 24 hours I made a comment about gun-control and your intelligent response was "get stuffed" - just as mature as how you once said that US "FOREIGN" policy should not be discussed by foreigners.... just as silly. Also some w*nker called Jack whom I have never discussed anything with started the F-bombs and really childish comments about history that is over three centuries ago as if that has anything to do with gun-debate.

    Go through these and come back with a more plausible response please.

    In the end it comes down to this, I participate and because I do not join but actually question and debate - some people (yourself included) cannot hack it and start whinging, threatening and being abusive. You could ignore my posts, but no. You could debate and respond, but no. You say "stuff you" and threaten to delete posts. Very mature indeed!

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  40. Ah yes, the welfare queens … sort of like the welfare queens who wasted $22 billion of other people’s money on the Big Dig so that the local Goombah’s would have a career outside of prison. Yeah, now I get it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Marine,

    nice quib but pointless, rather like many of your postings. I made a response above to Sam, base your comments to me on that even though it is off topic.

    DC

    ReplyDelete
  42. Damien, it is entirely possible that you suffer from Dissociative identity disorder. You may not remember writing these comments while confused, but here are the examples you requested.

    Example 1: JonBerg I suggest you read posts and not imagine what they said as it makes you look totally stupid.

    Example 2 (ten minutes ago) Marine, nice quib but pointless, rather like many of your postings.

    Keep it up and find yourself deleted. If you want, you can go whining to AOW again.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @ Anon/DC... whatever --

    How is it a nice quib but pointless?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sam,
    Well, it won't do any good for commenters here to whine to me. I may own this blog, but you are a full partner. I made that choice with confidence.

    We are on the same page with this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Z,
    Marines rock!

    I saw the above as one who has a family member in the USMC. In the case of my cousin, the USMC made a real gentleman out of a wart hog. He was on the path to nowhere, then found what he needed in the USMC.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Duck,
    Mr. AOW is not an avid reader of anything. You know why, of course. I do expect him to read more -- now that his eye surgery has yielded good results, much better than the experts expected with all the midline shift in his brain.

    He does pick up on vocal tones and nuances, however.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Simplistically put:

    Taxes are a DISINCENTIVE to risk-taking entrepreneurship.

    Taxation is THEFT of private resources.

    Taxation discourages initiative.

    Taxation discourages thrift. Why bother to save money when the interest it earns will be TAXED?

    Taxation is ABUSE.

    Taxation is EVIL.

    PERIOD!

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  48. Jobs report out. Imagine what it would look like if the GOP hadn't axed 700 thousand teachers, police and fire fighters.

    Video: 2004 Mitt Romney Says It’s ‘Poppycock’ To Blame President For Job Market

    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/2004-video-mitt-romney-said-blaming-president-bush-lack-jobs-was-poppycock

    ReplyDelete
  49. Teachers, police and fire fighters are government employees, you idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Tax loopholes are the bread and butter of the Democrats---see Solydra and GE.

    This latest move by team Obama to raise the rates on the wealthiest americans is more political doublespeak. GE doesnt pay taxes now and they will not pay if the rates went up. Try to get his in your skull liberalmann NONE thats right NONE of Barry's friends including his former Chum buddies are going to pay a dime in more taxes. This is all a giant scam on you and your ilk. The game is simple gin up the failing base by throwing out this red meat and you act like a Pavlov dog. But the real game is this, Team Obama is losing the donation war because his policies have tanked the economy. This ploy is designed to strong arm business under threat of rising taxes to contribute to his campaign. This little fraud have nothing to do with getting more money into the coffers. As to taxes, Reagan was right on, get rid of the favoritism and lower the playing field for everyone.

    As Aow pointed out, the probalem is spedning. Liberals play these little games using the base line budgeting to say spending has decreased because the rate of increase in spending has reduced a tiny bit in a few categories but the fact we are spending more dollars and taking in less as the economy grinds to a halt.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Sam,

    be real - both of them were replies. I was certainly hard on the first one, the second to Marine was most justified.

    So, with polite respect, is it a one-sided show? That I cannot respond but others can dish out?

    I will certainly tone down my rhetoric and style, but I would imagine a similar case all around. One time I was warned by your fellow-blogger that debating with one particular commenter is "asking for it" with all comments targetting myself personally and being called 'sh*it' etc.

    So, as I believe we say on both sides of the Atlantic...

    peace

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  52. FT,

    with respect would it not be fair to say that "no tax" means no federal, state or local funding for say important functions such as public service, national security, roads and other infrastructure?

    Nations run on taxation, the question is how much is to much and like any business, it boils down to credits and debits (what comes in and what goes out) and the net result in what is in your pocket. Very high taxing nations such as Norway and Finland also have very high income levels and of course high prices - the net result is their standard of living is high and they would argue balanced, it is only in competitiveness with other nations (or how much we foreigners have to pay when we go there) that matters.

    I am not American and I cannot tell from my perspective if your current taxes are too high in comparison to what you get for your dollar and what is your pay-packet. I would suspect that it is about right now simply because of your CPI, then again with job-creation starting to grow, lower taxes would be not justified.

    Cheers

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  53. AGAIN, from above @ Anon/DC... whatever --

    How is it a nice quib but pointless?

    I REALLY want to hear your explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Devil Dog:


    "How is it a nice quib but pointless?"

    "I REALLY want to hear your explanation"

    Obviously this "limp wrist" can't and won't. What did you expect from someone so shallow that can only blurt desultory rambelings, interspersed with occasional epithets, and who amounts to no more than a cheap provocative alien? The lack of response from this one brings much credit to you!

    ReplyDelete
  55. DC I appreciate your contribution to this debate as you are not an American. However, comparing the US to any other country is sort of silly. The US has enjoyed such prosperity that we are victims of it. We live in a bubble were we believe everyone lives like us. Our wealth is ridiculous. This is not a bad thing. It is a testament to what a freemarket economy, based on capitalism, with limited government can offer. With all due respect, it is the reason so many have flocked to the US because there is something different here. At least there used to be. Now we just want to compare ourselves to Norway or Finland as though somehow surrendering the American experience would be ok.....

    Let me try this again, Reagan did not raise or lower taxes exactly. He removed the barriers to entry into the economy so anyone could enjoy the same taxation rate as the big corporations. He mitigated the influence of lobbyists and the result was the biggest expansion in the US economy since WW2. If we want to turn this economy around we have to not only undue what Barry did but also all the other perks put in place by Republicans. Getting rid of Obamataxcare is like cutting the line on just 1 of the anchoring weighing this economy down.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hawker Beechcraft, a company I once worked for, is being sold to a company in China, but hopefully, it will rescue it from bankruptcy and bring more jobs to Wichita, which recently lost about 20,000 jobs when Boeing moved out.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective