Posted on Nov 10, 2014
Bill O'Reilly makes some good points for Republicans
3.33K
6
5
1
1
0
I don't necessarily agree with everything, but if the Republicans don't figure out how to make things better in the next two years, then the pendulum is going to swing the other way.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/GOP-infighting-Obamacare-minimum-wage/2014/11/07/id/605986/
First, the Dems spent the last 6 years complaining about obstructionist Reps who wouldn't "compromise" (which they mean as "cave in") to the administration and the majority party. I expect them to do the same thing now that they are the minority. When they do, this needs to be mentioned, but some level of compromise needs to be offered.
Campaign finance reform needs to be addressed, but contributions from unions need to be on the table. The Dems want big corporations muzzled, but not unions. The Dems want the Hunt brother muzzled, but not George Soros. This discussion needs some quid pro quo.
We need the line item veto. Even Barrack Obama would make a difference by cutting out all the back room dealing - you vote for mine and I'll vote for yours, that gets us into the spending mess we are in. With the line item veto, you could never be sure that you were going to get your pork, just by voting for the other guy's pork.
For years now liberal economists have been telling us the government must spend, when the country is in a recession. But when times are good, Congress (all sides) spend like drunken sailors. (No, that's not fair to the sailors, since they aren't quite that profligate, but it's the closest description I can think of.) We need a LOCK BOX that no one in government can dip into, much like Texas' Rainy-Day fund, with specifically defined controls to get us through hard times. (In other words, we need a government that can think beyond the next election.)
We need to stop mortgaging our children's future. That doesn't mean balanced budget NOW, but it does mean that the government needs to have a budget (just like you and I do) and they have to find a way to make it sensible (just like you and I do.) You can borrow money, for a house or for education, and the government must be able to as well, but we can't continue to borrow a trillion dollars per year just so the government can be irresponsible.
We need to eliminate the Capital Gains tax and tax investment income as ordinary income. This is THE REASON that Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's tax rates are lower than their secretaries. Capital Gains are taxed at the LOWEST US tax rate, which means that the richest people in this country (those who make their money in the stock market) pay the lowest tax rate. And the funny thing is, BOTH MAJOR PARTIES are shielding these people (the 1%; donors to their campaigns; even they themselves) from paying their fair share.
We need tax breaks for companies that keep their workers in the US, and perhaps even increased taxes based on the percentage of workers who are not in the US. Let other countries worry about their own jobs; we need jobs here too.
We need education funding restricted to the jobs this country needs, doctors, engineers, teachers, mathematicians, economists, scientists, and so on. We have more than enough lawyers and Burger King managers. The way our tax dollars are spent needs to be an INVESTMENT with some kind of return to the country, not a giveaway.
We need to recognize the fundamental conflict of interest in allowing lawyers write laws that benefit their class more than the country. Because of this conflict of interest, we need to ban holders of a law degree at any level from holding legislative office. (They can still be in the judiciary or the executive branch.) Consider, if you have a toothache, do you go to a lawyer? If you need a road built, is a lawyer the first thing you think of? Why do we keep sending the people LEAST qualified to fix anything to Congress? Shouldn't we be sending doctors, economists, engineers, people who actually UNDERSTAND and can fix problems to Congress in place of people who can only write a law to regulate something they don't understand?
We need a guest-worker program. That is the solution to the Immigration "debate." If we issued an ID card, like our CACs to everyone who wants to cross the border, we could accomplish several things. First, no one but a criminal would need to cross the border illegally, which would make smugglers and terrorists easier to spot as they try to sneak in. Second, by making it possible to come in legally, we would reduce the calls for granting of citizenship. You don't need to be a citizen to cross our borders. Third, we could expect our laws to be obeyed. If you break the law, your ID card is taken, and you can't come back in again legally, which would encourage them to have insurance, drive sanely, and otherwise obey the laws.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/GOP-infighting-Obamacare-minimum-wage/2014/11/07/id/605986/
First, the Dems spent the last 6 years complaining about obstructionist Reps who wouldn't "compromise" (which they mean as "cave in") to the administration and the majority party. I expect them to do the same thing now that they are the minority. When they do, this needs to be mentioned, but some level of compromise needs to be offered.
Campaign finance reform needs to be addressed, but contributions from unions need to be on the table. The Dems want big corporations muzzled, but not unions. The Dems want the Hunt brother muzzled, but not George Soros. This discussion needs some quid pro quo.
We need the line item veto. Even Barrack Obama would make a difference by cutting out all the back room dealing - you vote for mine and I'll vote for yours, that gets us into the spending mess we are in. With the line item veto, you could never be sure that you were going to get your pork, just by voting for the other guy's pork.
For years now liberal economists have been telling us the government must spend, when the country is in a recession. But when times are good, Congress (all sides) spend like drunken sailors. (No, that's not fair to the sailors, since they aren't quite that profligate, but it's the closest description I can think of.) We need a LOCK BOX that no one in government can dip into, much like Texas' Rainy-Day fund, with specifically defined controls to get us through hard times. (In other words, we need a government that can think beyond the next election.)
We need to stop mortgaging our children's future. That doesn't mean balanced budget NOW, but it does mean that the government needs to have a budget (just like you and I do) and they have to find a way to make it sensible (just like you and I do.) You can borrow money, for a house or for education, and the government must be able to as well, but we can't continue to borrow a trillion dollars per year just so the government can be irresponsible.
We need to eliminate the Capital Gains tax and tax investment income as ordinary income. This is THE REASON that Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's tax rates are lower than their secretaries. Capital Gains are taxed at the LOWEST US tax rate, which means that the richest people in this country (those who make their money in the stock market) pay the lowest tax rate. And the funny thing is, BOTH MAJOR PARTIES are shielding these people (the 1%; donors to their campaigns; even they themselves) from paying their fair share.
We need tax breaks for companies that keep their workers in the US, and perhaps even increased taxes based on the percentage of workers who are not in the US. Let other countries worry about their own jobs; we need jobs here too.
We need education funding restricted to the jobs this country needs, doctors, engineers, teachers, mathematicians, economists, scientists, and so on. We have more than enough lawyers and Burger King managers. The way our tax dollars are spent needs to be an INVESTMENT with some kind of return to the country, not a giveaway.
We need to recognize the fundamental conflict of interest in allowing lawyers write laws that benefit their class more than the country. Because of this conflict of interest, we need to ban holders of a law degree at any level from holding legislative office. (They can still be in the judiciary or the executive branch.) Consider, if you have a toothache, do you go to a lawyer? If you need a road built, is a lawyer the first thing you think of? Why do we keep sending the people LEAST qualified to fix anything to Congress? Shouldn't we be sending doctors, economists, engineers, people who actually UNDERSTAND and can fix problems to Congress in place of people who can only write a law to regulate something they don't understand?
We need a guest-worker program. That is the solution to the Immigration "debate." If we issued an ID card, like our CACs to everyone who wants to cross the border, we could accomplish several things. First, no one but a criminal would need to cross the border illegally, which would make smugglers and terrorists easier to spot as they try to sneak in. Second, by making it possible to come in legally, we would reduce the calls for granting of citizenship. You don't need to be a citizen to cross our borders. Third, we could expect our laws to be obeyed. If you break the law, your ID card is taken, and you can't come back in again legally, which would encourage them to have insurance, drive sanely, and otherwise obey the laws.
Economy
Leadership
Hillary Clinton
Republicans
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
SGM (Join to see) ... First of all, have you thought about running for elected office? Wow, that's quite a post!
I think O'Reilly makes some good points. (So do you!) And I think that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate MUST be willing to give and take with the President. It can't be one-sided by either siide. If the Republicans don't "play nice," there will be more charges of obstructionism, and the charges will be valid. Even if the Republicans do work with the President, there's a strong chance that Hillary Clinton will be the next President. If the Republicans don't cooperate, her election is - in my humble opinion - almost guaranteed.
I think O'Reilly makes some good points. (So do you!) And I think that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate MUST be willing to give and take with the President. It can't be one-sided by either siide. If the Republicans don't "play nice," there will be more charges of obstructionism, and the charges will be valid. Even if the Republicans do work with the President, there's a strong chance that Hillary Clinton will be the next President. If the Republicans don't cooperate, her election is - in my humble opinion - almost guaranteed.
(2)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Chief, I appreciate the compliment [at least I assume it was a compliment ;) ] but I cannot imagine being a politician. I spent 15 years in the Infantry and 38 years overall in the service, where HONOR is something we live by, not a commodity bartered to get a vote for pork.
My only quibble with your response is that Dems should have to play nice too, but the reality of politics being what it is, I expect I might as well believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
Hillary in 2016 ... If that doesn't scare some cooperation, nothing will.
My only quibble with your response is that Dems should have to play nice too, but the reality of politics being what it is, I expect I might as well believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
Hillary in 2016 ... If that doesn't scare some cooperation, nothing will.
(1)
(0)
SGT Steven Montgomery
I'm with you SGM (Join to see) Hillary in 2016 is a scary proposition. I'm out of uniform for many years and am entitled to my opinion Halloween has passed, time to move beyond talking about the witches!! :)
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Don't necessarily disagree with you on your points except for the capital gains piece. Money invested has already been taxed once when it was initially earned. For instance, when I make a stock purchase (outside a 410k or IRA) that money was taxes when I earned. If I invest in a company and it returns a dividend or I sell at a substantial increase in the stock price, then I make money and pay either a short or long-term capital gain based on how long I kept the stock. A short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income (this takes care of the day traders). But when I invest long-term, I'm helping with the (hopeful) growth of that company. If you tax long-term capital gains as ordinary income, you'll see the amount of stock sold in America drop like crazy. You mention Buffet and Gates - I do not fault them for their wealth. One, they are doing a lot of good with it from philanthropy and two, they have also created a ton of jobs from their investments as well.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
I'm not talking about double taxing money. I'm saying that if you are Bill Gates, and you buy $1,000,000 worth of stock, and sell it 366 days later for $2,000,000, you should pay tax on the increase. (In other words, pay taxes on $1,000,000. But with Capital Gains, he pays $150,000, or less depending on how good his tax lawyer is.) And the richest man in the world shouldn't be paying the lowest US tax rate. About 2/3rd of every dollar made in the stock market goes to the 1%. I'm not saying soak the rich, but they are getting the profit, and getting the lowest tax rate, which doesn't seem fair either.
And I'd be less likely to detest both Gates and Buffet, if they weren't always lobbying for higher income taxes that they don't pay. Both are the darlings of the Democrats, who figure that if rich people are in favor of higher taxes, it's a good thing, but only the middle class ends up paying them.
But let's assume the 1% are in the 33% bracket. That's 18% additional tax paid on 2/3rd of every dollar made in the US stock market. Surely that would do wonders for our budget. And as long as Gates and Buffet can lobby for my taxes to be increased, I can lobby for theirs to at least be equitable.
And I'd be less likely to detest both Gates and Buffet, if they weren't always lobbying for higher income taxes that they don't pay. Both are the darlings of the Democrats, who figure that if rich people are in favor of higher taxes, it's a good thing, but only the middle class ends up paying them.
But let's assume the 1% are in the 33% bracket. That's 18% additional tax paid on 2/3rd of every dollar made in the US stock market. Surely that would do wonders for our budget. And as long as Gates and Buffet can lobby for my taxes to be increased, I can lobby for theirs to at least be equitable.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google