On the Beach, I Bring von Mises

[Maggie]

'On the Beach, I Bring von Mises' - The tea party favorite on her start in politics, where she learned her conomics, and why she disagrees with Reagan on the War Powers Resolution

I read this article over the weekend – and I liked it, it made me take a second look at Bachmann. I always knew she wasn’t the twit the MSM made her out to be and the debate last night, coupled with this write up in the WSJ, confirmed my suspicion.

I am not sold on her as the GOP nominee but the other candidates would be wise not to underestimate her.

[WuDrWu]

As usual, the attacks against her in the media are unfair and baseless.


That being said, Congresswoman Bachmann faces a steep challenge because, as I see it, the independents in this country are going to be EXTRAORDINARILY skeptical of ANYONE without the credentials to be President. Fool me one, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Independents aren't about to repeat the Obama-debacle again. This plays into the incumbant factor as well, and why I believe President Obama will be re-elected. Too many voters won't want to chance the unknown, or at least the unknown in their own eyes.


In theory, her idea about everyone having to pay something is well founded, practical and essential for system that should be both a safety net and a carefully monitored hand UP.

The problem in putting this theory into practice, at least today, is that there aren't just 47% that don't pay in......this group just doesn't pay in...they take out, sometimes in huge amounts.

Does the American public have the stomach to tell a single mother that works and makes 25k that she isn't going to get a $2000 "Earned Income Credit" welfare check at the end of the year (even if she didn't have so much as $1 of her money withheld for Federal Tax) and will have to pay even $1 in addition?

I don't think so. It would be nice....it would also be nice to have the deadbeat father held accountable, and the family do more to support the downtrodden etc etc

The biggest problem is that we've made so many things too easy in a effort to improve our lives.

Easy transportation with roads and highways? That's a good thing. Easy to collect Medicare money by billing the government for 991 procedures in just one day? That's a bad thing. So are millions for the Arts (see the local discussion last evening for the city council) etc. Easy to stay on unemployment benefits for 2+ years? Bad. Easy to collect food stamps and then sell them for dope, cigs, tats etc? Bad. This list could go on for months, if not years.

But the real problems, the problems only Paul Ryan has the stones to discuss, politically, are Social Security and Medicare. I would like to think that a majority of the voting public is interested in a fair discussion on how to address these failing programs, but since it is SO EASY to get money from them, I highly doubt it.

And we are going to be up **** Creek without a paddle when we do nothing about it one and a half years from now, and we'll all be screwed then.

[SB Shock]

As usual, the attacks against her in the media are unfair and baseless.


That being said, Congresswoman Bachmann faces a steep challenge because, as I see it, the independents in this country are going to be EXTRAORDINARILY skeptical of ANYONE without the credentials to be President. Fool me one, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Independents aren't about to repeat the Obama-debacle again.

Our country has scales over it's eyes. Nothing is changing. It is all lip service. We are are country of fools so it being fooled multiple times is par for the course.

The weiner-gate is a pure example of this - why is this guy not gone? Probably because this is the just the tip of the iceberg with our politicians and their immorality. They say the right things but are just hoping this just blow over. If as a country won't do the right thing on something so black and white - they sure are not going to do the right thing on the hard things.

[shock]

Any woman running gop is going to be harrassed beyond all measure. Dan Quayle part 2

[Maggie]

Bachmann did well; we will see where it leads. She will be "challenged" (if you read the op-eds - quickly mind you - that is evident) - but the challenge wont' be intellectual but, rather, superficial. All the same, I am not convinced - I am not sold on anyone.

Setting the bar low (or am I?) - I will support someone whose instincts are solid over the unknown amorphous slick politician. Bachmann doesn't strike me as such. And good on her. But should my trust lie in the independents and there "judgment" (as uninformed, as that might be, sorry) ? I don't know.

[SubGod22]

Bachmann did well; we will see where it leads. She will be "challenged" (if you read the op-eds - quickly mind you - that is evident) - but the challenge wont' be intellectual but, rather, superficial. All the same, I am not convinced - I am not sold on anyone.

Setting the bar low (or am I?) - I will support someone whose instincts are solid over the unknown amorphous slick politician. Bachmann doesn't strike me as such. And good on her. But should my trust lie in the independents and there "judgment" (as uninformed, as that might be, sorry) ? I don't know.

Sadly, you don't have to have any intellectual challenge as much of the electorate will simply skim the superficial points and believe it as fact. I find it sad that more of the people don't attempt to really become informed about candidates and rely solely on what certain individuals tell them...

I'll admit that I haven't seen any debates at this point and am waiting to see how some things shake out before really plunging in and researching more. Too many people at the moment and I have no say until next November anyway. I'll start looking more into different individuals around the end/start of the year.

[wufan]

All I can say is that her economic philosphies line up with mine almost across the board. If you live in a free-market society you must have incentive to be prosporous, and getting government money to subsidize your efforts (through well-fare or tax credits) when you fail does not lead to prosperity, it leads to further failure with a dependence on more government money. There was a reason why the Founding Fathers required you to own property before you could vote; it was because property owners had a stake in the government's success. I'm not saying you must own property, but you must have a stake in the government's success over your own. Paying taxes (fair taxes) is one way to create a stake.

On Bachman's argument for lowering corporate income tax, that is a FANTASTIC plan. The will attract businesses, create jobs, and create tax revenue all while decreasing the need to support unemplyed.

Here in McPherson, KS, city and county taxes are rediculously low for manufacturing facilities. As a result, there are MORE JOBS AVAILABLE then people qualified to work. People travel over an hour every day to come to work here, and people are paid above market wages in order to come to McPherson. What are the other benefits? Huge tax revenue to support a relatively small population. Utilities are dirt cheap, taxes are dirt cheap, parks and festivals are abundant. Two income families without college education live in $250,000.00 homes.

Oh, and by the way, it is a non-union town with a thriving "Main Street" retail district.

[BOBB]

You simply cannot reduce the corporate tax rate to 9% AND eliminate capital gains. Only wage earners would be paying taxes at that point. Eliminate corporate taxes altogether and tax capital gains at the marginal rates.

[wufan]

You simply cannot reduce the corporate tax rate to 9% AND eliminate capital gains. Only wage earners would be paying taxes at that point. Eliminate corporate taxes altogether and tax capital gains at the marginal rates.

I don't know if the numbers work out, but the concept is right on the money. Reducing cap gains and corp taxes (as well as tax credits/deductions) is the way to stay economically competitive in the world market IMO. It encourages investment in the US (foreign and domestic) which leads to growth, which leads to new taxes generated at a lower burden on the payee. I'll let the congress debate on the exact figures.

[BOBB]

You simply cannot reduce the corporate tax rate to 9% AND eliminate capital gains. Only wage earners would be paying taxes at that point. Eliminate corporate taxes altogether and tax capital gains at the marginal rates.

I don't know if the numbers work out, but the concept is right on the money. Reducing cap gains and corp taxes (as well as tax credits/deductions) is the way to stay economically competitive in the world market IMO. It encourages investment in the US (foreign and domestic) which leads to growth, which leads to new taxes generated at a lower burden on the payee. I'll let the congress debate on the exact figures.

It would work fine until all the small business owners ditched their s-corps that pay taxes at the owner's marginal rates for c-corps. The marginal tax burden shouldn't be different based on the source of income. If all parties paid their fair share then the marginal rates could come down across the board.