AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Come on, okie, you're a non-entity when it comes to conservative power and actions. I'm talking about all those in government and conservatives today who would vote for a 92% tax rate.

Take off your ego hat; your prognostications have no credibility on these boards.

I have already told you I support something like that, along with an agreement to wipe out all corporate or business profit taxes. My proposal is to collect all income tax at the personal level, so that businesses are not penalized for their productivity. For example, if a company makes high profits and as a result of that they pay their executives millions, the tax will be paid by the executives on their personal income tax return.
I will admit to a bit of tongue in cheek spirit with the hundred grand margin, but I propose that if we now consider need and ability as the primary principles in play. If you want to move the 100% down to 90 or 95% for over 1 million or for over 200,000, I could live with that. I would rather see the movie stars give their money to the government than I would see them give it to the Democrats anyway. Same with Soros.

I realize my proposal is a bit unusual for anybody, liberal or conservative, but we live in tough times and we face bold challenges, so it will take bold policies to combat the problems we have. Remember, the central point of my plan is the elimination of all corporate and business income taxes. I have proposed this before. My first choice would be a retail sales tax to replace all income tax, but I would support high personal marginal tax rates as a second choice, only with the elimination of corporate and business income tax.

Last point, conservatives do not all agree upon what tax rates to use. This was proven by Eisenhower. Same with JFK when he lowered marginal income tax rates. Huckabee is an example of a comtemporary conservative that favors the national sales tax.

okie, You just don't get it! Your support means absolutely nothing in this climate with the GOP or tea party. Your inability to see reality is your problem.

That's not how I remember it.

Here's where he waffles: something like that. How about your flat tax proposals in which those people who earn less than $20,000/annum pay the same percentage as the robber barons who've taken the incomes of most of the working class?

Oh, and hands off corporations.

Then you are willing to admit that Clinton can still be blamed for his choices and the effect, good or bad, that those decisions had on the US and the world.
And his actions regarding the military can still be blamed on him.

Clinton has nothing to do with this thread. Furthermore, you have never had -- and never will have -- an intimate conversation with me, so you have no idea what I think.

First of all, I don't think I have ever advocated on this forum a flat tax rate for all income. I have advocated the idea of switching from an income tax to a retail sales tax, but I would build in some progressivity in that as well, so that food and other essentials would not be sales taxed.
Secondly, most people know that corporations don't pay tax for all practical purposes. It is the consumer that pays the tax as part of the purchase price. Unfortunately, that is why many domestic corporations goods and services are priced out of the market by cheaply produced foreign goods. One of the basic fixes for our economy is to form policies that would place all goods and services on an equal tax competition basis. The retail sales tax could accomplish that, and that is one reason I believe we should seriously consider that policy. Another fix is to eliminate all corporate and business income tax and instead collect all tax at the personal or individual level. Do you grasp the concept, pom?

Having an intimate conversation with you has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I simply responded to your words.
And just in case you forgot what you wrote, and what I was responding to...


Those are your words, and that is what I was responding to.

You are saying that the decisions a President makes affect the future, not just the presidents term.
So, the question I asked is a fair one.
Can Clinton be blamed and/or credited today for decisions he made or actions he took as President?
After all, those actions or decisions, or lack of, still affect the US and the world today.

Why are you wondering off into the netherlands? Besides, haven't I just told you that I will never have an intimate conversation with you? And if you insist on putting words in my mouth, I will reach through the computer and rip off what ever passes for your three inches?

How did I put words in your mouth when I quoted you directly, AND posted your words so everyone can see them.

It seems to me that you are ducking the question completely.
Why is that?

Did I say anything about Clinton in the past day or two? Did I say anything about Clinton is weeks? That's how you put words in my mouth.

Ducking? No, I demand the right not to tell people for whom I have no respect to not ask me things I know they will misinterpret. I demand the right to not express intimate ideas to people I would never share anything with.

You come out of nowhere, like a bully, with a sudden change of subject and expect me to be some sort of meek little girl who answers da big bad man who thunders a question.

Don't play the innocent and say how did I put words in your mouth. You are simply too annoying to deal with.

From Salon:

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said that states are the "laboratories of democracy." Oft repeated over time, the aphorism has helped impart legitimacy to the rough and tumble of state lawmaking. We've heard "laboratory" and we've imagined staid scientists in white coats rigorously testing forward-thinking theories of societal advancement.

It's certainly a reassuring picture -- but there is a darker side of the metaphor. States are indeed laboratories. The problem is that today, those laboratories are increasingly run by mad scientists.

We're not talking about the usual Dr. Frankensteins trying to bring alive new corporate giveaways through harebrained cuts to social services (though there are those, too). We're talking about true legislative sadists looking to go medieval on America. Behold just six of the most telling examples:

The Anti-Life Pro-Life Act: After antiabortion Republicans in Congress tried to narrow the legal definition of rape, Nebraska Republican state Sen. Mark Christensen took the assault on women's rights one step further with a bill to legitimize the murder of abortion providers by classifying such homicides as "justified."

The Let Them Eat Corporate Tax Cuts Act: As poverty rates and hunger have risen, so, too, have corporate profits. * The Georgia Legislature's response? Intensify the inequity with a bill to create a regressive sales tax on food that would then finance a brand-new corporate tax cut.

The Demoralize the Workforce Act: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker didn't just threaten to deploy the National Guard against state workers unless they accept big pay and pension cuts. Apparently, that was too Kent State and not enough Ludlow Massacre for him. So he pressed to statutorily bar those workers from ever again collectively bargaining.

The Child Labor Act: Missouri state Sen. Jane Cunningham's proposal to eliminate child labor laws would allow corporations to employ any kid under 14 and would terminate restrictions on the number of hours that kid can be forced to work. The legislation is proof that when Tea Party ideologues refer to "the '50s," some of them aren't referring to the 1950s -- they are referring to the 1850s.

The Obesity and Deficit Encouragement Act: Colorado exemplifies America's childhood obesity epidemic and its budget crisis. The state's childhood obesity rate grew at the second fastest rate in the country, and its $1.2 billion budget gap is threatening the state's already underfinanced schools. Yet, despite the U.S. Department of Agriculture showing that higher soda taxes would drive down obesity, and despite such a levy raising much-needed public revenues, Colorado's newly Republican House is pushing legislation to create a special budget-busting sales tax exemption exclusively for soda.

The Endorsing Your Own Demise Act: Between trying to legalize hunting with hand-thrown spears and pressing to eliminate education requirements for those seeking the office of state superintendent of schools, Montana's Republican lawmakers are also considering legislation to officially endorse catastrophic global climate change. That's right, in the face of a Harvard study showing that climate change could destroy Montana's water supplies, agriculture industries and forests, state Rep. Joe Read's bill would declare that "global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana."

If you don't live in one of these states, it's easy to tell yourself that these bills don't affect you. But history suggests that what happens in one "laboratory" is quite often replicated in others -- and ultimately, in the nation's capital. That's why we should all hope saner minds cut short these experiments before they get even more out of control.

David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at [email protected], follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

* Let us remember that okie wants to eliminate taxes on corporations.

Interesting:

Conservative video prankster activist James O'Keefe made his name and makes his living secretly videotaping various members of the supposed vast left-wing conspiracy interacting with people who aren't who they say they are. He then edits the tapes to make the targets look as awful as possible -- often using unarguably deceptive techniques such as misleading audio edits and blatantly false text explanations of context -- and releases the resulting smear jobs to a waiting right-wing press that will mindlessly repeat whatever O'Keefe says the video "proves" until someone bothers to watch the unedited version and explain what actually happened, which usually happens days later, after the target has resigned or been fired or defunded or whatever. Nice work if you can get it.

Because of his familiarity with the rottenness of his own technique, he is apparently wary of being videotaped himself. The Asbury Park Press learned this the hard way when it attempted to trick him into saying something offensive by pretending to be a racist Tea Party leader simply videotape a speech he gave to a roomful of people.



As you can see, the videographer for the press was prevented from filming the speech by the delightfully named Charles Measley, a local "Tea Party Member." O'Keefe personally requested that no one film his presentation to the local Tea Party group, which even the representatives of the group seemed to disagree with. Though, as one said: "“This is a guy that’s in trouble with the law, he’s got lawsuits up the gazoo for trying to help you with your freedom.”

The New Jersey paper got the last laugh, though. Here's the kicker on its report on the speech:

So, who's O'Keefe's next victim, an attendee wanted to know.

"Anyone who's stealing, scamming, (defrauding), lying to the American people,'" O'Keefe said. The event organizers said O'Keefe would receive $500 for the talk.

Again: Nice work if you can get it!

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon.

Yes, remember that. You should also remember that my first choice would be to eliminate all income tax in favor of a retail sales tax. The elimination of corporate income tax as well as income tax on business profits were my second choice, provided the income tax was collected at the personal level from individuals. Examples of how this would work, shareholders would pay income tax on dividends from stock, or from the sale of stock that had gained value. Also, the employees of profitable companies would pay income tax on their compensation, which would not only include their salary, but all benefits as well. Any compensation with tangible value would be taxable. A company could not pay their employees with all kinds of perks and avoid taxation. The idea is not to quit collecting tax, but to collect it at a different point in the economic stream, thus increasing our ability to compete in the world market.

I hope you can understand the concepts involved here, pom? I am not convinced that you are, based upon your pattern of posting.

okie, That's what you fail to understand; concepts. Your ideas about taxation belongs on the laffer curve; it has absolutely no weight or reality to it. You still haven't learned to live in the real world; how can people take you seriously?

I suggest that you go back and study the US Constitution where it spells out how our government operates where it concerns taxation in this country.

I would also remind you that this country has three branches of government; for the necessary check and balances.

It'll be a good start, so you stop making a fool out of yourself on these boards.

Why are you against the corporate income tax okie?
It is really nothing more than a sales tax since the only people that pay it are the customers that buy the product.

You said that President Bush could be accountable for 100 years if his actions and policies affect the US for that long.

So, does that apply to every President?
Its a simple yes or no question.

You dont need to explain your answer, I dont need you to clarify it.
Its simply yes or no.
How difficult is that?

The answer is yes. The Buck Stops Here; remember that?

Anyone who believes in personal responsibility - as so many Conservatives claim is at the core of their identity - must agree that executive officers have a duty to take responsibility for things that happened under their command. It is up to the individual to judge the truth of the matter - extenuating circumstances, et cetera.

Cycloptichorn