Terrorism: Words Matter
Enough already. Its time for Americans to convince our leaders to stop calling ISIS and their sympathizers “Terrorists”. I propose the adoption of a far more descriptive term.
I'm flipping between cable news channels listening to the talking heads argue whether the pressure cooker and pipe bomb explosions that occurred this weekend in New York City and Elizabeth New Jersey were acts of terror or not.
Americans are once again subjected to this endless, irrelevant argument because our leaders rely on one word and its derivatives to describe three distinct steps of an investigation.
1. What happened?
2. Who did it?
3. Why did they do it?
Republicans and Fox News conclude that when a bomb blows up, it’s terror.
Democrats and their media prefer to wait until all three investigative questions have been answered. To many Americans, the term terror is synonymous with Islamic Terrorism.
The colloquial definitions for terror, terrorist and terrorism have become ambiguous and a constant source of controversy and division. That is why we should adopt the following term to describe ISIS et al.
• Whereas ISIS and other Radical Islamic groups are armed but are not recognized as legitimate states by the United Nations, they are by definition paramilitary groups.
• Whereas these groups adhere to a version of Islam that is wholly intolerant of any other belief, they adhere to Intolerant Islam.
• Whereas their stated goal is the global domination of their intolerant Islamic belief, therefore the new term to describe ISIS et al shall be:
Paramilitary Intolerant Islamic Globalists – PIIGs.
Washington Examiner - FIX THAT
An Open Letter:
To the editors of the Washington Examiner.
From James W. Schneider July 1, 2016
In response to your June 30, 2016 editorial entitled:
“Trump brings heat, not light, to trade debate.”
I am not a Trump supporter and I agree with the bulk of your criticisms of his speech. But your US economic solution at the end of the article is overly simplistic and no longer true.
You state...
You imply that once the Federal Government passes these “freer trade” deals, the government will have no impact on America’s ability to “compete with the world as well as they always have”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
US business taxes and regulations have increasingly placed US based labor at a distinct disadvantage for decades. And our present course only promises to make our disadvantage worse.
Businesses do NOT pay taxes - ONLY PEOPLE PAY TAXES. The taxes that businesses remit must be recovered by increasing prices or reducing wages. Likewise, the cost of all business regulations must also be covered in the prices that a business charges.
Until the voters learn that government imposed business costs reduce the demand for US based labor, and increase the costs of US made goods, Congress will continue to hide taxes within US based businesses. This will force more of our best middle class jobs (tradeable manufacturing jobs) overseas.
The problem with our trade deals is not that they allow trading partners to specialize and export what they make best and cheapest - that's a good thing. The problem is the excessive costs that US based businesses must incur to comply with US regulations. These excessive costs have made offshoring and outsourcing, which the trade deals facilitate, the only logical economic choice for many businesses.
This is the main reason why Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and so many Americans on the left and right believe our trade deals are so bad. They have mistakenly concluded that the trade deals alone caused the loss of so many US jobs to foreign shores. When, in actuality, it was our Government’s failure to recognize how stupid it is to make US based businesses increasingly less competitive in the face of an ever expanding global economy.
You want America to “seek every new opportunity for freer trade”? Then you should demand that both parties FIX THAT!
The solution is simple. But the solution is only politically possible IF the voters learn that they, and they alone, pay for every business tax and every business regulation. But before voters would take action, they must be able to see how much these burdens actually cost them.
Imagine a new law that required every sales receipt include two numbers that totaled to the price the consumer pays. The first number includes the business price. The second number includes all the federal, state and local costs imposed on business and labor. Imagine the voter reaction when they see on every receipt for an American made product, that the total government business TAX is in excess of 30%?
Then the solution would be obvious. Transfer all non-safety related government imposed costs from US based businesses to a consumption tax, or some other non business tax. Some might argue that the price the consumer paid would remain the same, but they would be wrong.
Businesses would focus entirely on the best way to produce their goods and services and eliminate the 30% of unproductive, non-product related costs. This would make US labor cheaper - creating demand for more US based jobs. It would make US made goods cheaper to our trading partners - causing demand for more US exports.
Along the way, because of the tax visibility, a miracle would occur. The people would become aware and continuously question the cost vs. benefits of these programs with every receipt. Every consumer would demand their politicians optimize the efficiency of these programs, or get rid of them. The people would begin to unite on what the role of government should be.
Hiding taxes in business is a corrupt and sneaky way for politicians to hide taxes from the people. But the real calamity is how these burdens are killing America's greatest strength - the world's largest middle class with the world's highest standard of living.
Yes - the solution is simple - never allow politicians to hide the costs of their taxes and regulations in the prices that the people have to pay for the goods and services they receive. If we could do that, then we would end up with a government and an economy that works for all Americans.
To the editors of the Washington Examiner.
From James W. Schneider July 1, 2016
In response to your June 30, 2016 editorial entitled:
“Trump brings heat, not light, to trade debate.”
I am not a Trump supporter and I agree with the bulk of your criticisms of his speech. But your US economic solution at the end of the article is overly simplistic and no longer true.
You state...
"Over the last five decades, free trade has allowed Americans to buy more for each hour they work than they otherwise could have. The economic solution needed is one that neither major party's candidate is suggesting: America should open its doors, seek every new opportunity for freer trade (for example, with Great Britain), and have faith in its workers and businesses to compete with the world as well as they always have."
You imply that once the Federal Government passes these “freer trade” deals, the government will have no impact on America’s ability to “compete with the world as well as they always have”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
US business taxes and regulations have increasingly placed US based labor at a distinct disadvantage for decades. And our present course only promises to make our disadvantage worse.
Businesses do NOT pay taxes - ONLY PEOPLE PAY TAXES. The taxes that businesses remit must be recovered by increasing prices or reducing wages. Likewise, the cost of all business regulations must also be covered in the prices that a business charges.
Until the voters learn that government imposed business costs reduce the demand for US based labor, and increase the costs of US made goods, Congress will continue to hide taxes within US based businesses. This will force more of our best middle class jobs (tradeable manufacturing jobs) overseas.
The problem with our trade deals is not that they allow trading partners to specialize and export what they make best and cheapest - that's a good thing. The problem is the excessive costs that US based businesses must incur to comply with US regulations. These excessive costs have made offshoring and outsourcing, which the trade deals facilitate, the only logical economic choice for many businesses.
This is the main reason why Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and so many Americans on the left and right believe our trade deals are so bad. They have mistakenly concluded that the trade deals alone caused the loss of so many US jobs to foreign shores. When, in actuality, it was our Government’s failure to recognize how stupid it is to make US based businesses increasingly less competitive in the face of an ever expanding global economy.
You want America to “seek every new opportunity for freer trade”? Then you should demand that both parties FIX THAT!
The solution is simple. But the solution is only politically possible IF the voters learn that they, and they alone, pay for every business tax and every business regulation. But before voters would take action, they must be able to see how much these burdens actually cost them.
Imagine a new law that required every sales receipt include two numbers that totaled to the price the consumer pays. The first number includes the business price. The second number includes all the federal, state and local costs imposed on business and labor. Imagine the voter reaction when they see on every receipt for an American made product, that the total government business TAX is in excess of 30%?
Then the solution would be obvious. Transfer all non-safety related government imposed costs from US based businesses to a consumption tax, or some other non business tax. Some might argue that the price the consumer paid would remain the same, but they would be wrong.
Businesses would focus entirely on the best way to produce their goods and services and eliminate the 30% of unproductive, non-product related costs. This would make US labor cheaper - creating demand for more US based jobs. It would make US made goods cheaper to our trading partners - causing demand for more US exports.
Along the way, because of the tax visibility, a miracle would occur. The people would become aware and continuously question the cost vs. benefits of these programs with every receipt. Every consumer would demand their politicians optimize the efficiency of these programs, or get rid of them. The people would begin to unite on what the role of government should be.
Hiding taxes in business is a corrupt and sneaky way for politicians to hide taxes from the people. But the real calamity is how these burdens are killing America's greatest strength - the world's largest middle class with the world's highest standard of living.
Yes - the solution is simple - never allow politicians to hide the costs of their taxes and regulations in the prices that the people have to pay for the goods and services they receive. If we could do that, then we would end up with a government and an economy that works for all Americans.
Washington Examiner - FIX THAT
An Open Letter:
To the editors of the Washington Examiner.
From James W. Schneider July 1, 2016
In response to your June 30, 2016 editorial entitled:
“Trump brings heat, not light, to trade debate.”
I am not a Trump supporter. And your critiques of his speech are accurate. But your US economic solution at the end of the article is overly simplistic and no longer true.
You state...
You imply that once the Federal Government passes these “freer trade” deals, the government will have no impact on America’s ability to “compete with the world as well as they always have”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
US business taxes and regulations have increasingly placed US based labor at a distinct disadvantage for decades. And our present course only promises to make our disadvantage worse.
Businesses do NOT pay taxes - ONLY PEOPLE PAY TAXES. The taxes that businesses remit must be recovered by increasing prices or reducing wages. Likewise, the cost of all business regulations must also be covered in the prices that a business charges.
Until the voters learn that government imposed business costs reduce the demand for US based labor, and increase the costs of US made goods, Congress will continue to hide taxes within US based businesses. This will force more of our best middle class jobs (tradeable manufacturing jobs) overseas.
The problem with our trade deals is not that they allow trading partners to specialize and export what they make best and cheapest - that's a good thing. The problem is the excessive costs that US based businesses must incur to comply with US regulations. These excessive costs have made offshoring and outsourcing, which the trade deals facilitate, the only logical economic choice for many businesses.
This is the main reason why Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and so many Americans on the left and right believe our trade deals are so bad. They have mistakenly concluded that the trade deals alone caused the loss of so many US jobs to foreign shores. When, in actuality, it was our Government’s failure to recognize how stupid it is to make US based businesses increasingly less competitive in the face of an ever expanding global economy.
You want America to “seek every new opportunity for freer trade”? Then you should demand that both parties FIX THAT!
The solution is simple. But the solution is only politically possible IF the voters learn that they, and they alone, pay for every business tax and every business regulation. But before voters would take action, they must be able to see how much these burdens actually cost them.
Imagine a new law that required every sales receipt include two numbers that totaled to the price the consumer pays. The first number includes the business price. The second number includes all the federal, state and local costs imposed on business and labor. Imagine the voter reaction when they see on every receipt for an American made product, that the total government business TAX is in excess of 30%?
Then the solution would be obvious. Transfer all non-safety related government imposed costs from US based businesses to a consumption tax, or some other non business tax. Some might argue that the price the consumer paid would remain the same, but they would be wrong.
Businesses would focus entirely on the best way to produce their goods and services and eliminate the 30% of unproductive, non-product related costs. This would make US labor cheaper - creating demand for more US based jobs. It would make US made goods cheaper to our trading partners - causing demand for more US exports.
Along the way, because of the tax visibility, a miracle would occur. The people would become aware and continuously question the cost vs. benefits of these programs with every receipt. Every consumer would demand their politicians optimize the efficiency of these programs, or get rid of them. The people would begin to unite on what the role of government should be.
Hiding taxes in business is a corrupt and sneaky way for politicians to hide taxes from the people. But the real calamity is how these burdens are killing America's greatest strength - the world's largest middle class with the world's highest standard of living.
Yes - the solution is simple - never allow politicians to hide the costs of their taxes and regulations in the prices that the people have to pay for the goods and services they receive. If we could do that, then we would end up with a government and an economy that works for all Americans.
To the editors of the Washington Examiner.
From James W. Schneider July 1, 2016
In response to your June 30, 2016 editorial entitled:
“Trump brings heat, not light, to trade debate.”
I am not a Trump supporter. And your critiques of his speech are accurate. But your US economic solution at the end of the article is overly simplistic and no longer true.
You state...
"Over the last five decades, free trade has allowed Americans to buy more for each hour they work than they otherwise could have. The economic solution needed is one that neither major party's candidate is suggesting: America should open its doors, seek every new opportunity for freer trade (for example, with Great Britain), and have faith in its workers and businesses to compete with the world as well as they always have."
You imply that once the Federal Government passes these “freer trade” deals, the government will have no impact on America’s ability to “compete with the world as well as they always have”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
US business taxes and regulations have increasingly placed US based labor at a distinct disadvantage for decades. And our present course only promises to make our disadvantage worse.
Businesses do NOT pay taxes - ONLY PEOPLE PAY TAXES. The taxes that businesses remit must be recovered by increasing prices or reducing wages. Likewise, the cost of all business regulations must also be covered in the prices that a business charges.
Until the voters learn that government imposed business costs reduce the demand for US based labor, and increase the costs of US made goods, Congress will continue to hide taxes within US based businesses. This will force more of our best middle class jobs (tradeable manufacturing jobs) overseas.
The problem with our trade deals is not that they allow trading partners to specialize and export what they make best and cheapest - that's a good thing. The problem is the excessive costs that US based businesses must incur to comply with US regulations. These excessive costs have made offshoring and outsourcing, which the trade deals facilitate, the only logical economic choice for many businesses.
This is the main reason why Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and so many Americans on the left and right believe our trade deals are so bad. They have mistakenly concluded that the trade deals alone caused the loss of so many US jobs to foreign shores. When, in actuality, it was our Government’s failure to recognize how stupid it is to make US based businesses increasingly less competitive in the face of an ever expanding global economy.
You want America to “seek every new opportunity for freer trade”? Then you should demand that both parties FIX THAT!
The solution is simple. But the solution is only politically possible IF the voters learn that they, and they alone, pay for every business tax and every business regulation. But before voters would take action, they must be able to see how much these burdens actually cost them.
Imagine a new law that required every sales receipt include two numbers that totaled to the price the consumer pays. The first number includes the business price. The second number includes all the federal, state and local costs imposed on business and labor. Imagine the voter reaction when they see on every receipt for an American made product, that the total government business TAX is in excess of 30%?
Then the solution would be obvious. Transfer all non-safety related government imposed costs from US based businesses to a consumption tax, or some other non business tax. Some might argue that the price the consumer paid would remain the same, but they would be wrong.
Businesses would focus entirely on the best way to produce their goods and services and eliminate the 30% of unproductive, non-product related costs. This would make US labor cheaper - creating demand for more US based jobs. It would make US made goods cheaper to our trading partners - causing demand for more US exports.
Along the way, because of the tax visibility, a miracle would occur. The people would become aware and continuously question the cost vs. benefits of these programs with every receipt. Every consumer would demand their politicians optimize the efficiency of these programs, or get rid of them. The people would begin to unite on what the role of government should be.
Hiding taxes in business is a corrupt and sneaky way for politicians to hide taxes from the people. But the real calamity is how these burdens are killing America's greatest strength - the world's largest middle class with the world's highest standard of living.
Yes - the solution is simple - never allow politicians to hide the costs of their taxes and regulations in the prices that the people have to pay for the goods and services they receive. If we could do that, then we would end up with a government and an economy that works for all Americans.
Is Morning Joe unAmerican?
James W. Schneider
Thursday, June 9th, 2016
I have never been a Donald Trump supporter for President. In fact, I reluctantly voted for Marco Rubio over John Kasich in the Georgia Republican Primary because at the time, I believed that Rubio had a better chance to stop Trump.
But Like many Republicans, I have grown increasingly concerned with the news media abusing its Constitutional protections to surreptitiously promote one political party over another.
As an example:
Since Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President, the MSNBC Morning Joe program has covered him extensively. Before Mr. Trump became the Republican party’s presumptive nominee, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski went out of their way to show the positives of “The Donald’s” foibles and antics. They praised his populist campaign genius and his ability to remain focused on the task at hand as he surgically took out his opponents one by one.
Now that Mr Trump is the Republican nominee, Joe and Mika spend much of their three hours a day, five days a week demonizing the man and the things he does. They book the gamut of anti-Trump Republican sympathizers to give credence to their attacks. Once on camera, they insist those same Republicans denounce Mr. Trump further and proclaim that he is an unAmerican racist who is completely unfit for the Presidency.
Anyone who watched the Morning Joe transformation from objective Trump analysis to unrelenting demonization could only conclude that the fix was in from the beginning.
I’m not suggestion that there was a carefully orchestrated plan or a well rehearsed script. Rather, all that was needed was a simple two step understanding between the principals to
1. Look for Trump’s positives and then be fair and balanced in their portrayal of him.
2. Once nominated, do everything possible to discredit him.
From there, the cadre of sycophant program regulars would instinctively recognize the intent of the principles without any instructions and dutifully improvise their roles in the two act play.
Want proof? All you have to do is find the time to review the Morning Joe videos from the point where Donald Trump became the Republican front runner.
The Morning Joe program is entitled to present any political view they wish? What they are not entitled to do is intentionally deceive and manipulate their voting viewers in an effort to rig an election to promote their personal agenda. That Joe Scarborough is unAmerican.
Thursday, June 9th, 2016
I have never been a Donald Trump supporter for President. In fact, I reluctantly voted for Marco Rubio over John Kasich in the Georgia Republican Primary because at the time, I believed that Rubio had a better chance to stop Trump.
But Like many Republicans, I have grown increasingly concerned with the news media abusing its Constitutional protections to surreptitiously promote one political party over another.
As an example:
Since Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President, the MSNBC Morning Joe program has covered him extensively. Before Mr. Trump became the Republican party’s presumptive nominee, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski went out of their way to show the positives of “The Donald’s” foibles and antics. They praised his populist campaign genius and his ability to remain focused on the task at hand as he surgically took out his opponents one by one.
Now that Mr Trump is the Republican nominee, Joe and Mika spend much of their three hours a day, five days a week demonizing the man and the things he does. They book the gamut of anti-Trump Republican sympathizers to give credence to their attacks. Once on camera, they insist those same Republicans denounce Mr. Trump further and proclaim that he is an unAmerican racist who is completely unfit for the Presidency.
Anyone who watched the Morning Joe transformation from objective Trump analysis to unrelenting demonization could only conclude that the fix was in from the beginning.
I’m not suggestion that there was a carefully orchestrated plan or a well rehearsed script. Rather, all that was needed was a simple two step understanding between the principals to
1. Look for Trump’s positives and then be fair and balanced in their portrayal of him.
2. Once nominated, do everything possible to discredit him.
From there, the cadre of sycophant program regulars would instinctively recognize the intent of the principles without any instructions and dutifully improvise their roles in the two act play.
Want proof? All you have to do is find the time to review the Morning Joe videos from the point where Donald Trump became the Republican front runner.
The Morning Joe program is entitled to present any political view they wish? What they are not entitled to do is intentionally deceive and manipulate their voting viewers in an effort to rig an election to promote their personal agenda. That Joe Scarborough is unAmerican.
Paramilitary Intolerant Islamic Groups - PIIGS
We are not at war with Islamic Terrorists. Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot be at war with a tactic. War is terrifying. Does that make all soldiers terrorists? That's the problem you run into when you alter the meaning of well defined terms to refer to something else. We should eliminate any form of the word terror when labeling groups and instead, call them what they are. We are at war with Paramilitary Intolerant Islamic Groups - PIIGS.
Muslims who practice Islam as a religion of tolerance and peace, and who we need to help defeat this enemy, will not be offended by the acronym PIIGS. They will appreciate the distinction between themselves and those who have subverted their religion. They will be the first to stand up and condemn the PIIGS. And for those few who won't, what does that say about them?
The FBI announced they are investigating the San Bernardino attacks as an “act of terrorism”. What does that mean? Wouldn't it make more sense if the FBI had announced they were investigating the rampage as an attack by one or more PARAMILITARY INTOLERANT ISLAMIC GROUPS.
No doubt the Progressives will find the acronym PIIGS offensive and will immediately resort to their tactic of political correctness to demonize any transgressors who dare to use terms or express ideas they don't like. That's ok. Most Americans are sick and tired of political correctness and are beginning to see PC for what it really is – Progressive Censorship.
Muslims who practice Islam as a religion of tolerance and peace, and who we need to help defeat this enemy, will not be offended by the acronym PIIGS. They will appreciate the distinction between themselves and those who have subverted their religion. They will be the first to stand up and condemn the PIIGS. And for those few who won't, what does that say about them?
The FBI announced they are investigating the San Bernardino attacks as an “act of terrorism”. What does that mean? Wouldn't it make more sense if the FBI had announced they were investigating the rampage as an attack by one or more PARAMILITARY INTOLERANT ISLAMIC GROUPS.
No doubt the Progressives will find the acronym PIIGS offensive and will immediately resort to their tactic of political correctness to demonize any transgressors who dare to use terms or express ideas they don't like. That's ok. Most Americans are sick and tired of political correctness and are beginning to see PC for what it really is – Progressive Censorship.
Voter's Creed
The Right to Vote:
I believe that voting is both a right and a responsibility.
I believe that voting is both a right and a responsibility.
I believe I have the right
to vote or not to vote.
I believe that when I vote,
I have a responsibility to understand who, and what it is I am voting for, or
against.
I believe the candidates
have a responsibility to earn my vote.
I believe that I have a
responsibility to give each candidate the opportunity to earn my vote.
I believe that if I always
vote based on party affiliation, I cheapen the value of my vote because I have
failed to force the candidates to earn my vote.
I believe that for national
elections, it is my responsibility to understand our nation's most important
issues.
I believe each candidate is
responsible for presenting their detailed plans on how they would address our
nation’s most important issues.
The “United” States:
I believe theUnited States
I believe the
I believe candidates and
political parties should strive to unite all Americans around those common
goals.
I believe candidates and
political parties should never adopt strategies that pit one group of Americans
against another group for political gain.
I believe that dividing
Americans is never in our nation’s best interest.
I believe it is my
responsibility to reject those candidates who try to divide Americans.
National Economic Objective:
I believe the economic policies of theUnited States
I believe the economic policies of the
I believe our federal
government’s National Economic Objective should be to enact polices that will:
“Continuously improve the standard of
living of ALL Americans”
I believe this National
Economic Objective will help:
- Unite our divided nation.
- Prevent our leaders from advancing proposals
that have been designed to divide our nation for political gain.
- Force our elected leaders to focus on our major
economic challenges.
I believe that today our
major economic challenges include:
- A regulatory environment that impedes the growth
of US based, profit funded, private sector jobs.
- A safety net system that is ill defined, poorly
managed, fraught with moral hazards and wastes far too many tax payer
dollars.
- A growing national debt that acts like a brake
on our economy.
- Senior Entitlement programs that are unsustainable
under current funding law and will accelerate the growth of our national
debt.
- A tax system that impedes economic growth by
forcing people and businesses to make sub optimal economic decisions.
- A federal government that is not motivated to be
good stewards of our tax dollars or our nation’s fiscal health.
- An education system that has failed to provide
our children with the skill sets they will need to succeed in a
technically advancing global economy.
Jobs:
I believe the best way to improve a person’s standard of living as well as their sense of worth and well being is through a job.
I believe the best way to improve a person’s standard of living as well as their sense of worth and well being is through a job.
I believe that from an
economic standpoint there are two types of jobs.
- Profit Funded Jobs and
- Taxpayer Funded Jobs.
I believe from a national
economic standpoint, profit funded jobs are better at growing the economy and
in improving the standard of living for more people than are taxpayer funded
jobs.
I believe that taxpayer
funded jobs are better at redistributing income then they are at growing the
economy.
I believe that every job is
important to the person who holds that job but that US based, profit funded,
private sector jobs are the most valuable for the long term health of our
economy and are the most important type of job for achieving our national economic
objective.
I believe therefore, that
our federal government’s job policy should be to do everything within the
government’s authority to entice Americans and the rest of the global private
sector to create, fill and maintain permanent, full-time, US based, profit
funded, private sector jobs.
I believe the U.S. Job
Burden stands as the greatest obstacle preventing the growth of the U.S.
What is the Job Burden?
I believe the Job Burden is…
I believe the Job Burden is…
The
collection of government regulations and other costs that are imposed on
for-profit businesses that do not add value to the goods and services those
businesses produce.
I believe that a core set of
regulations that protect people, nature, and our natural resources from the negligent
and unscrupulous acts of some will always be needed to “properly regulate” any
market based economy. But, far too often, our regulations do more to prevent
good people from doing good then they do in preventing bad people from doing
bad.
I believe that every nation
imposes its own Job Burden on its businesses but that the US Job Burden has
become the most expensive Job Burden in the world.
I believe the best way to
expand the U.S. job market
and improve the U.S.
I believe that until we
substantially reduce the U.S. Job Burden, the United States
I believe business taxes can
help explain the harm caused by the Job Burden.
I believe that economists
know that a business cannot pay taxes. Only people can pay taxes. All any
business can do is collect enough money from its customers when it sells them
goods and services to pay its expenses, including its taxes.
I believe it is the owners
and investors – through reduced returns; or employees – through reduced
compensation; or customers – through increased prices who actually pay for all
business taxes and the other Job Burden costs of a business.
I believe however, that
through globalization, the owners’ returns are protected because they can always
invest in improving markets overseas.
I believe that with the
advent of two earner households and an ever more generous safety net, the U.S.
I believe therefore, that it
is typically the US
I believe the Job Burden is
a tax that is hidden from the customer because it is buried in the price.
Customers have no idea how much they pay for the Job Burden.
I believe the Job Burden is
America’s most regressive tax and therefore hurts the poor more than any other
tax because; rich and poor pay the same amount of Job Burden tax when they
purchase the same product. The lower a person’s income, the greater is the
percentage of their income that they must expend to pay for the Job Burden tax
on basic necessities.
I believe that, depending on
the product, the Job Burden portion of US
I believe that any
politician who wants to improve the standard of living of the poor should start
with policies that reduce the Job Burden.
I believe I should support
those candidates with the best plan to reduce the Job Burden.
Congress and the Job Burden:
I believe a “properly regulated” free-market, capitalist economy (Capitalism) has proven to be the greatest economic engine for advancing the standard of living for more people than any other economic system ever devised.
I believe a “properly regulated” free-market, capitalist economy (Capitalism) has proven to be the greatest economic engine for advancing the standard of living for more people than any other economic system ever devised.
I believe that a business is
simply: people agreeing to pool their talents and resources to fill a want or
solve a problem that others are willing to pay more for than it costs to
provide.
I believe capitalism works
because, more than any other system, it aligns with human nature. We humans are
social animals who learn through trial and error. We are born with a desire to continuously
improve our standard of living; or as our Founding Fathers phrased it: “the
pursuit of happiness”. We achieve our
goals through a delicate balance between our natural instincts of cooperation
and competition. It is this self-serving and self-correcting “invisible hand”
that is shared by all of us that allows capitalism to succeed with a minimum
set of intervening rules and enforcement policies.
I believe that each
restriction we place on capitalism makes our economy less efficient.
I believe for-profit
businesses work, in part, because every business leader knows that their
primary job is their fiduciary responsibility to maximize the return on
investment for their owners.
I believe that business
leaders know they have a responsibility to consider all options, including
outsourcing, off shoring or relocating overseas in order to fulfill their
obligations to their owners.
I believe that If managers
fail to produce a competitive return on investment, the owners will either
change the management or move their investments.
I believe it is the
responsibility of our elected leaders to understand the fundamentals of Capitalism
and human nature and enact those policies that convince business leaders of
both foreign and domestic firms that their best business opportunities can be
found in the USA
I believe that any elected
leader who labels US business leaders as un-American or un-patriotic for moving
their operations abroad is a demagogue trying to hide his or her own leadership
and legislative failures.
I believe that any elected
leader who does not understand the critical link between jobs and the Job
Burden is not qualified to legislate business taxes or business regulations.
I believe the real reason why
Congress taxes businesses is because they want the additional tax revenue but
they fear voter retribution. So, Congress deceives the voters by taxing US businesses,
which in turn must hide the tax from the customer-voters by imbedding it in the
price of the US
I believe that Congress
succeeds in the business tax sham because our education system fails to teach
the linkage between business taxes, private sector jobs, and our economy.
I believe that if Congress
passed a law that required every sales receipt to include a line item for the
Job Burden cost of that product, Congress would stop taxing our businesses and
would be far more judicious with the business regulations they enact because
the voters would demand it.
I believe the Show the Job Burden Tax on the Receipt Act
would be one government regulation that businesses would support because once
the voters realized that the Job Burden of US manufactured goods could exceed
40% of the price, the people would force our elected leaders to become better
stewards of our economy.
I believe I should reject
those candidates who would add to the US Job Burden.
Government Labor Costs:
I believe that some of the biggest obstacles to growingU.S.
I believe that some of the biggest obstacles to growing
- Payroll Tax: (Social Security, Medicare,
Unemployment).
- Health Insurance: (Premium Support and the
Affordable Care Act).
- Retirement funding: (Defined Benefits and
Defined Contributions).
- Minimum wage premium: (The amount above the free
market wage for that job in that location).
I believe these US Job
Burden costs are nothing more than government imposed labor costs that, unlike
corporate income taxes, must be paid whether a business makes a profit or not.
I believe that in 2014, the
U.S. Corporate Income Tax raised $321
billion in federal taxes while the Payroll Tax alone raised $1 trillion.
I believe these government imposed
labor costs increase the cost of U.S.
I believe that any U.S.
I believe that increasing
the cost of U.S. labor decreases
the demand for U.S.
I believe the easiest, most
effective and most obvious way for any U.S.
based employer to reduce their U.S.
government imposed labor costs is to reduce their U.S.
I believe the safety net
programs that Congress has funded through U.S.
I believe there are much
better ways to pay for our safety net then with our jobs.
I believe I should reject
any candidate who is not committed to the elimination of all Government imposed
labor costs.
Senior Entitlements:
I believe that Senior Entitlements is the group name given to the Social Security and Medicare programs.
I believe that Senior Entitlements is the group name given to the Social Security and Medicare programs.
I believe the escalating
costs and poor fiscal management of our senior entitlements must be addressed.
The longer we wait to fix the problems will only make the eventual solution
that much more harsh on our seniors and expensive for ourselves and our
children.
I believe our Senior
Entitlement programs are underfunded by over $40 trillion. If we hope to continue
paying the senior benefits that have been promised using the same pay-as-you-go
funding, we will have to tax our children and their children an additional $40
trillion over the next 75 years. This will slow their economy and weaken their
future.
I believe the Democrats want
to fix our Senior Entitlement deficits by increasing business paid, and
employee paid payroll taxes. In other words, Democrats want to add to the Job
Burden. This will do more harm than good to the long term health of our
economy.
I believe the Republicans
want to fix our Senior Entitlement deficits by reducing senior benefits. In
other words, Republicans want to penalize seniors for Congressional mismanagement
of taxpayer funds.
I believe the solutions
offered by either party will be so distasteful to the American voter that both
parties will continue to “kick the can down the road” until our collective
American can falls off the fiscal cliff.
I believe we need to convert
the way we finance our senior safety net from a fiscally inefficient
pay-as-you-go insurance model to a far more fiscally sound, growth oriented,
perpetually funded, lifetime capital investment model.
Imagine, you're a young
person with a newborn child on the way and you want to be responsible and help
fund your child’s retirement and you are asked to select one of these two
choices.
Pay-as-you-go:
Do nothing now. When your child start’s working at age 20, she will Contribute 6.25% of her pay for 50 years to help pay the Social Security benefits of those who are already retired. When she retires at age 70, those who are still working will pay for her retirement. Or
Do nothing now. When your child start’s working at age 20, she will Contribute 6.25% of her pay for 50 years to help pay the Social Security benefits of those who are already retired. When she retires at age 70, those who are still working will pay for her retirement. Or
Lifetime Capital Investment:
You and all other current taxpayers can make a one-time deposit of $750 in your child’s account and the federal government will guarantee to pay the same benefits, with the same cost of living increases for as long as she lives and she will never have a penny deducted from her pay to pay for the retirement of someone elsein the plan.
You and all other current taxpayers can make a one-time deposit of $750 in your child’s account and the federal government will guarantee to pay the same benefits, with the same cost of living increases for as long as she lives and she will never have a penny deducted from her pay to pay for the retirement of someone elsein the plan.
I believe that before you
make your choice, you should consider the following facts.
- The historic average return of the
- The worst 70 year period in
- Social Security began collecting taxes and
paying benefits in 1937.
I believe that had Social Security
invested $250 in the equivalent of a market index in 1937 for each US
- The $20 trillion in unfunded Social Security
liabilities today would not exist.
- The $2.7 trillion in Special U.S. Treasury IOU’s
that
- The $800 billion per year Payroll Tax for Social
Security that is used to redistribute income from workers to retirees
would not exist.
- The equity investment pool would have reached the
perpetual self-funding level of $8 trillion. It would be able to cover all
future benefits as well as eliminate the need for additional taxes to
cover new births.
I believe that a one-time
investment today of about $750 for each US citizen born, that grows at 10.4%
per year, would be able to pay the same projected, cost of living adjusted, average
Social Security benefits when those citizens retire at age 70.
I believe that replacing
Social Security and Medicare funding with lifelong investments in America
I believe the taxpayer cost
to fund an Invest-in-America program for Social Security would be about $3 billion
per year. (4 million births X $750). And another $3 billion for Medicare.
I believe that $3 billion
per year is less than the amount of foreign aid we have provided to Egypt and Pakistan
I believe that converting Social
Security and Medicare funding from a pay-as-you-go insurance program to a
Life-Time Invest in America
I believe that with just
this one change, we could, over time, reduce our federal safety net program
cost from $1.4 trillion, (46% of federal spending and 8% of GDP), to $395
billion or 2.3% of GDP.
I believe Congress should
develop an economically sensible tax policy to pay for our safety net programs
that does not harm our jobs, our economy, our poor, or our children’s future.
I believe I should support those
candidates who support Senior Entitlement reforms and the tax policy to support
it.
Taxes:
I believe that when discussing tax reform, Congress should unite behind the battle cry - Start Over!
I believe that when discussing tax reform, Congress should unite behind the battle cry - Start Over!
I believe the federal income
tax and payroll tax systems accounted for over 90% of the federal tax revenue
raised in 2014.
I believe that Congress
should be held accountable for the negative economic impacts of federal tax
policy.
I believe that if you want
less of something, you should tax it. If you still want less, tax it more. The
Payroll Tax is a $1 trillion a year tax on US based jobs. Do we really want
fewer jobs?
I believe that consumption
taxes would be the least economically harmful type of taxes.
I believe that because of
their history of abuse and over use, we the people should grant Congress far
less authority to favor and disfavor various groups and activities through the
tax code.
I believe we can help guide
our elected leaders to manage our economy more effectively and to fund and run
our safety net programs more efficiently if we replace the economically harmful
Income Tax and Payroll Tax systems with two new progressive consumption tax systems.
The Safety Net Tax - SNT:
The SNT is a retail consumption tax established to pay for all federal safety net programs. The SNT would be based on the FairTax. Progressivity would be achieved through a rebate, paid in advance, for the tax paid at the poverty level, to thoseU.S.
citizens, living in the U.S.
The SNT is a retail consumption tax established to pay for all federal safety net programs. The SNT would be based on the FairTax. Progressivity would be achieved through a rebate, paid in advance, for the tax paid at the poverty level, to those
The Personal Income Tax system - PITS:
The PITS is a hybrid personal income and personal consumption tax designed to pay for all federal expenditures that are not covered by the SNT. The PITS would be based on the progressive Hall-Rabushka Flat Rate Tax.
The PITS is a hybrid personal income and personal consumption tax designed to pay for all federal expenditures that are not covered by the SNT. The PITS would be based on the progressive Hall-Rabushka Flat Rate Tax.
Comments:
I believe you could help improve this creed if you wanted to. I hope you want to.
I believe you could help improve this creed if you wanted to. I hope you want to.
American Mobacracy
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/12/04/american-mobacracy/
By: Abe Greenwald. Editor Commentary Daily
“The future belongs to crowds,” wrote Don DeLillo in his 1991 novel Mao II. Boy, was he right. Today it’s protests in response to a baffling grand jury decision, but the phenomenon has been building for years. Tea Party rallies, the Rally for Sanity, Occupy Wall Street, minimum-wage protests, hoodie rallies, anti-Israel protests, climate rallies, Ferguson “die-ins,” World AIDS Day, World This Day, World That Day. The mass-grievance spectacle has come to saturate our culture and politics, and shape our national life.
In between demonstrations mob-rule holds firm by other means. Foremost online. The armchair lynch mobs of social media drive news cycles and end careers. A vigorous digital witch-hunt can wreck a life. In China, online vigilantism by an otherwise enfeebled citizenry goes by the term “human-flesh searches.” We’re not they’re yet, but we’re close.
Television too is coming under the sway of mobacracy. During the first round of Ferguson protests, news reporters joined the ranks of the enraged so they too could rail against police. On hipper talk shows, the political applause line has replaced the joke as the fundamental unit of communication. The new definition of comedian is a demagogue who gets a pass on vulgarity and inaccuracy. His goal is no longer to leave them in stitches; it’s to affirm the pooled self-righteousness of the audience with a zinger aimed at a common enemy. The Daily Show, Real Time, Last Week Tonight—it’s the news with cheering.
Why is this happening? It’s not because worsening conditions are driving people to justified rage. Life in today’s lowest American income bracket is no picnic, but all relevant data show it’s a material paradise compared to the poverty of less turbulent eras. Prejudice exists, naturally, but on a dramatically smaller scale than at any point in our history. And (if we must), global temperatures, as even NASA now acknowledges, haven’t changed significantly for 15 years.
Perhaps, then, the righteous mob satisfies a new non-material crisis in American life—namely, the need for meaning and connection. People are now less likely to affiliate with larger entities and institutions that once gave their lives shape and value: family, community, church, nation. Sharp declines in religious belief, marriage, and childbearing are stripping us of enduring notions of virtue and purpose and we’re striving to replace them.
Some quick facts: According to Pew, the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has doubled since 1990 alone. Another Pew poll tells us: “After decades of declining marriage rates and changes in family structure, the share of American adults who have never been married is at an historic high.” In 1960, only 9 percent of Americans over 25 hadn’t ever married. In 2012, the number was 20 percent. And in 2013, a federal government study concluded that the U.S. birthrate had fallen to a record low of 1.86 births per woman.
Here are the questions we face as a result: For whom or what do we sacrifice? What constitutes community? And how, ultimately, do we find transcendence? The old institutions furnished answers. We sacrificed for faith and family because that’s what our shared values dictated. Out of those shared values we found community. And through connections to God and each other, we transcended ourselves.
The galvanized mob picks up the slack both for lost meaning and lost human contact. Activism was once reserved for a small segment of the mostly young and self-righteous. Today, it’s just another dimension of cosmopolitan life. You subscribe to a cause—be it anti-fracking or organic food—and stick with it. As it occupies the space of religion, you tend to preach your cause hypocritically. But your cause asks so little of you (perhaps to post a meme on your Facebook profile), that you’re not really invested. It doesn’t ultimately satisfy the need for transcendence because you sacrificed so little.
The weak in conviction seek strength in numbers. They connect online and meet up to block a bridge or lie down in a train station. As community, this ultimately fails too. Participants don’t share values; they share a need for values. When it comes down to it, they’re no more sincere about one cause than they are about another.
Without strength (which comes from sacrifice), without ideas (which come from engaging tradition, not running from it), all that’s left is emotion. So emotion becomes the content of our politics. The irony of the recent anti-police outrage is that it’s arisen from a culture of constant policing: the identity police, the Islamophobia police, the language police, the food police, the bully police, the trigger-warning squads—they’re all out to catch and punish offenders. No grand jury convened.
These mob events look like action, but they ensure stasis. Nothing fruitful comes from channeling religious and family needs into politics. It’s worth recalling that the Russian word Bolshevik literally meant one of the majority.
Sent from my yacht
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)