first off, i'm a conservative and i do want to see Romney win because i think Obama is going in the wrong direction with his over regulation policies. having said that though, i do not want the economy and the stock market to crash until Romney gets elected and by then, the damage will already take its toll on Americans. do you really want to see anarchy and Americans losing their jobs and the stock market cratering just to get new leadership in office? i don't and i don't think this scenario needs to happen to elect a new President. i was just thinking of some scenarios that if our government would legislate, if only temporary, this stock market would boom. this would include, in no particular order: 1) decrease the corporate US tax rate to 25% at the very least - more profit to the corporation, they could use to pay down their debt and shore up their balance sheets and who knows, maybe feel better about hiring more employees 2) decrease the corporate tax rate for corporations to bring home the monies earned from international countries to the US. maybe a one time corporate tax rate of 10% to transfer to US. corporations are leaving billions of dollars in offshore banks because they would be taxed at the current corporate tax rate, which I think is around 30 to 35%. do you know that cisco has around 45 billion dollars in an offshore bank because they don't want to bring the money over to the US at the current corporate tax rate? this is the same issue for many US corporations that have money deposited outside of the US and is not capitalized on US soil. think about many jobs these corporations could create and feel better about their operations in the US...very positive i would imagine 3) revise or eliminate the Dodd and Frank bill. the financial markets especially, needs some preventive measures to make sure we don't experience 2008 again but from what i have experienced and read, i think this bill is too restrictive on businesses as a whole. 4) a minor regulation on hedge funds and high frequency trading firms. nothing wrong with capitalism but, when you have these firms with billions of dollars shorting a company, companies could get slammed on a technical basis instead of fundamentals. maybe the uptick rule for hedge funds and hft firms, but seems like these guys should be a little bit monitored to prevent massive downward, short-term trading. i think if just one of these measures, especially reducing the corporate tax rate, was acted upon, i think this would help kick start the US economy again.
the best thing that could happen would be for Romney to withdraw, Boehner and McConnel to resign and and the whole republican party to just close up shop and say, "OK, we'll do it your way."
No, the best thing would be to split into two separate countries, like the Czechs and the Slovaks did. The split should be done at the county level, since there is already a pre-existing government infrastructure at that level and that is the geographical level which probably best reflects the political preferences of those who live there. For example, Manhattan County could join "Taxtopia" but upstate New York counties would not. It could all be done with minimal acrimony and possibly a small fund to set up those who would prefer to move in their new location. The up-front cost would be minimal. I suspect you will disagree. It's funny that every anti-GOP poster I've suggested this to online doesn't want to do it. I suspect that it's because if it actually happened, no one would be left to blame for the Left's failures. And we all know that if there is one thing the Left is good at, it's blaming others for their failures. So, what I deduce from this admittedly small sample is that even people on the Left don't believe the BS they spew, at least not when push comes to shove.
the first time I pulled off the interstate and exited into Brooklyn, it was about 3 am, and I thought I had misread the sign and was in some kind of vacant lot or construction zone, that's how bad the roads are, and after spending a day in NYC, I went upstate, and in almost one hour, I nearly killed an Amish man riding in a buggy. For those of us that live in the midwest, it is hard to imagine just how different people that live what we would call "Close" actually are so yes, local control would really be a trip west Texans can't get along with east Texans When I lived in the gay bay and we were going through a drought, they use to show people on tv in SoCal running their garden hose to wash off their driveway when we had signs on all the toilets which said "In this land of drought and sun, we don't flush for number one" I think they kind of figured out local control won't work when black kids in Alabama couldn't even go to the public library
Last I heard, Bull Connor, along with all the other bogeymen from the 1950's and 1960's, is dead. Plus, as I said, you could set up a fund to enable a sort of "population transfer". If there are people in Alabama counties who want to live in NYC, they'd be able to do that before the actual transfer of power to a separate sovereignty occurred. Again, aside from the logistics (which can be worked out, we're Americans, after all, solving logistical problems is what we do), the primary contention is that the Left won't go for it. Why? Because it will expose their ideology as the unreal delusion it is. Much safer for them to have a scapegoat in the form of the GOP.
hey man, just playing devils advocate (which is usually how all these bad policies start), but I agree, more local control, less central D.C. control would be good it makes more sense at this time when you discuss the problem (if there even is one) in the Eurozone
I think we already went through this. What's next, each state has their own currency? I guess it's all how you define local. In 1850 it was one thing, but in 2012, the whole USA is local.
It's not even really about "local" vs. "centralized", it's about a total divergence of worldview. But, in your first post, you basically advocated that the GOP disband. What would that result in if not completely centralized control out of D.C.? Or, to accommodate Obama, Chicago? Again, if liberals really believe what they say about non-liberals (that we are all irredeemably stupid and selfish or evil and manipulative), they should jump at the chance to establish a separate sovereign nation where their policy preferences could be enacted with minimal opposition. Yet, if presented with that option (even in a hypothetical format like an internet comments board) they consistently fail to embrace the idea. The continental US is more than big enough to have two separate nations. In fact, even if you only took the "blue" US counties into account, the landmass would probably be bigger than about half the countries which have seats in the UN. I look at things in the world as up for constant negotiation. Nowhere is it written in stone that the US has to preserve its current configuration through all time. What I'm advocating is a peaceful split, not a civil war, so the analogy to the 1850's is inapt.
logic, you can always outwit me, so I don't even try anymore, my point was, it needs to get worse, extremely worse, before it gets better, and it is already happeneing, even democrats are starting to admit we can't solve the worlds problems with taxes, and that entitlements need to be reformed, but I like you have full faith in the American, and there is no reason why we can't have a world class social security system that even amazes the communists if we really wanted to. It's sort of like the mom and dad who just tell the kids, ok fine, we'll do it your way, ice cream for dinner and nobody has to clean up that would be the fastest way to get everybody on the same page again (if they ever were are on the same page)