Conway/Rand debate in NKY

[Clyde]

When Chris Mathews is calling the Democrat out on his actions, you must know that the Democrat was wrong. WOW!!

 

I saw that a good number of Ds called Conway out.

[RomanEmpire]

Desperate politicians take desperate measures.

[leatherneck]

Leatherneck, thank you for your thoughtful reply and sincere condolences. As you know this drug problem is an issue near to my heart. I do respectfully disagree with you about the federal government being limited to certain areas. I do agree that I pay way too much in taxes, not only federal but state and local as well. Now I've never paid a tax that was ever taken away. So my thought is they(federal, state and local government) should work together for a solution to this very real and pressing drug problem.

 

You are very welcome. I've enjoyed our civil discussion on the matter.

 

You have probably never paid a tax that was ever taken away because taxes haven't been taken away. That's the problem in my mind. We have to quit sending the same old type of elected officials to DC that want to do the same thing that has gotten us in the mess we are. In my assessment, Conway is one of those same old elected officials. For those of you that can't stand McConnell, I see Conway as another McConnell, just with a D instead of an R behind his name. He strikes me as someone very interested in going to DC and staying there for a very long time. I see Paul as any but that.

 

It really bothered me yesterday reading the Financial Times and seeing someone state that "Investors are concern that if China puts its foot on the breakes in a serious way, the dominant engine of growth might fall back". It's sad but true. The US is no longer the dominant engine of growth in the world; China is. If we don't act quickly and boldly, we will become the next UK. Once the dominant player in the world, but now a shadow of what it once was.

 

As the federal deficit grows to fund the ever expanding federal govt, federal income taxes have to be increased to prevent a Greece-type default down the road. I understand the theory that if the economy expands and generates more total tax revenues, it's possible for the deficit to be cut without increasing the rates. But I'm concerned that we are so far in debt that the expanding economy theory may not work. If you look at the thread in this forum involving businesses keeping foreign profits out of the US and investing them overseas, I think it's an indicator of what the future holds unless some bold (and likely painful) steps are taken soon.

 

In this very global economy, large corporations have to answer to all their shareholders, many of which are foreign. Coke is no longer owned by just American individuals. It's owned by foreign individuals, mutual funds driven by returns for their investors, etc. etc. The directors and executive officers of those large corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize profits for dividends and the value of the stock (and admittedly many also have self serving reasons to do so). If that means moving jobs over seas; if that means investing foreign profits outside the US so as not to pay the large US tax rate on foreign profits; if that means moving entire operations overseas to maximize profits, a very strong legal argument can be made that they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to do so in my opinion. If large corporations greatly diminish their investment in the US because of our tax policies, it will provide a huge hurdle to expanding the economy to the degree necessary to service the deficit and fund the federal govt. Which means tax rates will have to be raised, further dis-incentizing investment in this country and taking more and more dollars out of the pockets of small businesses and workers.

 

We have to look at the entire tax structure in this country and remove impediments to job growth and investment in this country. We've stuck our head in the sand because of the temporary pain it would cause.

 

I speak for no one but myself, but if the federal govt shut down or greatly diminished the role of several federal agencies AND correspondingly cut our federal income taxes, I'd be fine with paying increased taxes to the state and local govt units to fund their need to do some of the things the federal govt had attempted to do in the past, such as fighting the drug problem you have unfortunately seen loved ones have to deal with.

 

Perhaps it's the Marine in me, perhaps it's my own numerous experiences dealing with the federal, state and local govt units, but I have developed the very strong conclusion that the most efficient form of governance and action is at the smallest possible unit size. When the people affected by decisions have easy access to decision makers, the best decisions are made. When they have no or very limited access to the decision makers, the worst decisions are made. The latter is definitely the case for 99% of Americans when it comes to dealing with the federal govt. Most elected federal officials could not care less what happens in Ky. So in order for Rogers or any other federal elected official from Ky to get funds to deal with Ky's problems, they have to go along with Pelosi's requests to get money for CA, Reid's requests for NV, etc., etc., etc. That means more and more dollars have to be spent to fund these "needs" and it (the deficit) quickly has spiraled out of control.

 

I realize that Ky's General Assembly is also filled by elected officials wanting to take care of their areas first. But there is more commonality of interest concerning Ky in the General Assembly than there is in Congress. Of course the best possible solution would be to allow the Fiscal Courts to deal with the problems and let them directly have the tax revenues (without filtering it through DC and then Frankfort) to deal with those problems such as the drug problem you have very nicely and intelligently elaborated on.

Edited October 21, 2010 by leatherneck

[ColonelMike]

Makes me want to write myself in on election day...