Obama-nomics- increase 15% Capital gains to 28%

[GaryC 7]

In other words, social engineering through the tax code. It's wrong and un-American.

And it is especially wrong and un-American when the recipients of the benefits of that social engineering are those that need it the least as is the case today.

I think what Gary and many on the Right fail to recognize or acknowledge is that money is power and any concentration of power in this country is counter to it's democracy. If for the sake of argument, government were to completely step back and just allow market forces to shape our economy, we'd see a concentration of power in wealth into a small portion of the population (which actually has happened to a certain degree). An economic feudalism where only the strongest thrive. I've heard Gary say that he espouses to the principal of 'might makes right', so I can imagine that belief transcends into economics as well. However, he only needs to look at history to see what kind of natural events take place once the concentration of power and wealth is in the hands of a few. Ironically, that was the catelyst which sparked the birth of this nation...which is why the Founding Fathers had great foresight in wanting to avoid a concentration of power into the hands of a few.

BS. This country was founded as a response to a government that didn't respond to the people. Taxation without representation I do believe. There was nothing about hating the rich as you seem to do. With todays punitive taxes it is starting to get that way again. True we have representation, but no mater what we do our taxes keep going up to feed the federal monster we created.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think what Gary and many on the Right fail to recognize or acknowledge is that money is power and any concentration of power in this country is counter to it's democracy. If for the sake of argument, government were to completely step back and just allow market forces to shape our economy, we'd see a concentration of power in wealth into a small portion of the population (which actually has happened to a certain degree). An economic feudalism where only the strongest thrive. I've heard Gary say that he espouses to the principal of 'might makes right', so I can imagine that belief transcends into economics as well. However, he only needs to look at history to see what kind of natural events take place once the concentration of power and wealth is in the hands of a few. Ironically, that was the catelyst which sparked the birth of this nation...which is why the Founding Fathers had great foresight in wanting to avoid a concentration of power into the hands of a few.

BS. This country was founded as a response to a government that didn't respond to the people. Taxation without representation I do believe. There was nothing about hating the rich as you seem to do. With todays punitive taxes it is starting to get that way again. True we have representation, but no mater what we do our taxes keep going up to feed the federal monster we created.

It's not hate or envy for the rich, it's the patriot in me who despises any concentration of power into the hands of a few. The principals of a democracy is equality which doesn't mean the same treatment for everyone (no one is advocating we all have the same amount of wealth ...another fearmongering lie), but equality in terms of opportunity, rights and liberties. If there were only 3 mega corporations who owned all businesses in this country, your opportunity would be impeded. How far should we let them go? How big is too big and powerful in your mind?

As far as taxes - there is a windfall of tax shelters for investment. Like I said earlier, I'm open to changing the current system for one that Mike Huckabee has been suggesting. Fairness is key.

[GaryC 7]

I think what Gary and many on the Right fail to recognize or acknowledge is that money is power and any concentration of power in this country is counter to it's democracy. If for the sake of argument, government were to completely step back and just allow market forces to shape our economy, we'd see a concentration of power in wealth into a small portion of the population (which actually has happened to a certain degree). An economic feudalism where only the strongest thrive. I've heard Gary say that he espouses to the principal of 'might makes right', so I can imagine that belief transcends into economics as well. However, he only needs to look at history to see what kind of natural events take place once the concentration of power and wealth is in the hands of a few. Ironically, that was the catelyst which sparked the birth of this nation...which is why the Founding Fathers had great foresight in wanting to avoid a concentration of power into the hands of a few.

BS. This country was founded as a response to a government that didn't respond to the people. Taxation without representation I do believe. There was nothing about hating the rich as you seem to do. With todays punitive taxes it is starting to get that way again. True we have representation, but no mater what we do our taxes keep going up to feed the federal monster we created.

It's not hate or envy for the rich, it's the patriot in me who despises any concentration of power into the hands of a few. The principals of a democracy is equality which doesn't mean the same treatment for everyone (no one is advocating we all have the same amount of wealth ...another fearmongering lie), but equality in terms of opportunity, rights and liberties. If there were only 3 mega corporations who owned all businesses in this country, your opportunity would be impeded. How far should we let them go? How big is too big and powerful in your mind?

As far as taxes - there is a windfall of tax shelters for investment. Like I said earlier, I'm open to changing the current system for one that Mike Huckabee has been suggesting. Fairness is key.

Everything is temporary. At one time the railroads were huge, the steel industry was huge, the auto industry was huge but given time those things changed. I believe that the only regulations should be those that provide safety. Other than that the free market should decide what happens. Whenever the government tries to regulate in the name of "fairness" it only makes things worse. They should keep their noses out of it all together. It isn't something that the government has the right to do.

[GaryC 7]

...also, did reducing the capital gains tax actually do what Reagan claimed it would do? (increase tax revenue)

Getting back to the OP about tax cuts and the economy here is a chart showing the Reagan tax cuts increased the federal revenue by a trillion dollars over 10 years.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think what Gary and many on the Right fail to recognize or acknowledge is that money is power and any concentration of power in this country is counter to it's democracy. If for the sake of argument, government were to completely step back and just allow market forces to shape our economy, we'd see a concentration of power in wealth into a small portion of the population (which actually has happened to a certain degree). An economic feudalism where only the strongest thrive. I've heard Gary say that he espouses to the principal of 'might makes right', so I can imagine that belief transcends into economics as well. However, he only needs to look at history to see what kind of natural events take place once the concentration of power and wealth is in the hands of a few. Ironically, that was the catelyst which sparked the birth of this nation...which is why the Founding Fathers had great foresight in wanting to avoid a concentration of power into the hands of a few.

BS. This country was founded as a response to a government that didn't respond to the people. Taxation without representation I do believe. There was nothing about hating the rich as you seem to do. With todays punitive taxes it is starting to get that way again. True we have representation, but no mater what we do our taxes keep going up to feed the federal monster we created.

It's not hate or envy for the rich, it's the patriot in me who despises any concentration of power into the hands of a few. The principals of a democracy is equality which doesn't mean the same treatment for everyone (no one is advocating we all have the same amount of wealth ...another fearmongering lie), but equality in terms of opportunity, rights and liberties. If there were only 3 mega corporations who owned all businesses in this country, your opportunity would be impeded. How far should we let them go? How big is too big and powerful in your mind?

As far as taxes - there is a windfall of tax shelters for investment. Like I said earlier, I'm open to changing the current system for one that Mike Huckabee has been suggesting. Fairness is key.

Everything is temporary. At one time the railroads were huge, the steel industry was huge, the auto industry was huge but given time those things changed. I believe that the only regulations should be those that provide safety. Other than that the free market should decide what happens. Whenever the government tries to regulate in the name of "fairness" it only makes things worse. They should keep their noses out of it all together. It isn't something that the government has the right to do.

I'm glad you brought that up....it was good 'ol Republican Teddy Roosevelt who was the Big Trust Buster. Somehow, the Republican Party needs to find itself again.

[GaryC 7]

I think what Gary and many on the Right fail to recognize or acknowledge is that money is power and any concentration of power in this country is counter to it's democracy. If for the sake of argument, government were to completely step back and just allow market forces to shape our economy, we'd see a concentration of power in wealth into a small portion of the population (which actually has happened to a certain degree). An economic feudalism where only the strongest thrive. I've heard Gary say that he espouses to the principal of 'might makes right', so I can imagine that belief transcends into economics as well. However, he only needs to look at history to see what kind of natural events take place once the concentration of power and wealth is in the hands of a few. Ironically, that was the catelyst which sparked the birth of this nation...which is why the Founding Fathers had great foresight in wanting to avoid a concentration of power into the hands of a few.

BS. This country was founded as a response to a government that didn't respond to the people. Taxation without representation I do believe. There was nothing about hating the rich as you seem to do. With todays punitive taxes it is starting to get that way again. True we have representation, but no mater what we do our taxes keep going up to feed the federal monster we created.

It's not hate or envy for the rich, it's the patriot in me who despises any concentration of power into the hands of a few. The principals of a democracy is equality which doesn't mean the same treatment for everyone (no one is advocating we all have the same amount of wealth ...another fearmongering lie), but equality in terms of opportunity, rights and liberties. If there were only 3 mega corporations who owned all businesses in this country, your opportunity would be impeded. How far should we let them go? How big is too big and powerful in your mind?

As far as taxes - there is a windfall of tax shelters for investment. Like I said earlier, I'm open to changing the current system for one that Mike Huckabee has been suggesting. Fairness is key.

Everything is temporary. At one time the railroads were huge, the steel industry was huge, the auto industry was huge but given time those things changed. I believe that the only regulations should be those that provide safety. Other than that the free market should decide what happens. Whenever the government tries to regulate in the name of "fairness" it only makes things worse. They should keep their noses out of it all together. It isn't something that the government has the right to do.

I'm glad you brought that up....it was good 'ol Republican Teddy Roosevelt who was the Big Trust Buster. Somehow, the Republican Party needs to find itself again.

What he did was wrong. Just because a rep from 100 years ago did something doesn't make it right with me. But now that you bring it up the worst president of all time really started this whole mess. FDR started this country down the road it finds itself on right now. It made the people and business alike get used to the idea of suckling on the big government teat.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm glad you brought that up....it was good 'ol Republican Teddy Roosevelt who was the Big Trust Buster. Somehow, the Republican Party needs to find itself again.

What he did was wrong. Just because a rep from 100 years ago did something doesn't make it right with me. But now that you bring it up the worst president of all time really started this whole mess. FDR started this country down the road it finds itself on right now. It made the people and business alike get used to the idea of suckling on the big government teat.

You must be joking. You think Teddy Roosevelt was wrong? How did you come to that conclusion???

[GaryC 7]

I'm glad you brought that up....it was good 'ol Republican Teddy Roosevelt who was the Big Trust Buster. Somehow, the Republican Party needs to find itself again.

What he did was wrong. Just because a rep from 100 years ago did something doesn't make it right with me. But now that you bring it up the worst president of all time really started this whole mess. FDR started this country down the road it finds itself on right now. It made the people and business alike get used to the idea of suckling on the big government teat.

You must be joking. You think Teddy Roosevelt was wrong? How did you come to that conclusion???

The government has no right to break up business's because they think they got to big. It's just wrong. The government should just stay out of the way and let the market decide what is right.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm glad you brought that up....it was good 'ol Republican Teddy Roosevelt who was the Big Trust Buster. Somehow, the Republican Party needs to find itself again.

What he did was wrong. Just because a rep from 100 years ago did something doesn't make it right with me. But now that you bring it up the worst president of all time really started this whole mess. FDR started this country down the road it finds itself on right now. It made the people and business alike get used to the idea of suckling on the big government teat.

You must be joking. You think Teddy Roosevelt was wrong? How did you come to that conclusion???

The government has no right to break up business's because they think they got to big. It's just wrong. The government should just stay out of the way and let the market decide what is right.

Gary, can you not see the conclusion this would lead to if in fact the government simply allowed the concentration of power into a few hands? Should we ditch our current system and have Feudalistic Lords ruling the land? Surely you can find middle ground on this....to say the government has no right or responsibility in keeping power in balance is wreckless to say the least.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, can you not see the conclusion this would lead to if in fact the government simply allowed the concentration of power into a few hands? Should we ditch our current system and have Feudalistic Lords ruling the land? Surely you can find middle ground on this....to say the government has no right or responsibility in keeping power in balance is wreckless to say the least.

Monopoly

by D. T. Armentano, May 1992

I have been teaching economics at the university level for twenty-five years. Easily the most often-asked questions relate to monopolies. The questions are often put in the following form: "In an economy free of governmental regulation, wouldn't a firm or group of firms obtain a monopoly over some vital resource or product? And won't the monopoly then exercise its power by raising prices?"

The issues most often revolve around the oil industry and the famous Standard Oil Company antitrust case. The history of Standard Oil, students frequently tell me, proves that monopolies exist in free markets — and that they do raise prices arbitrarily — and that this is precisely why we need antitrust laws.

Are monopolies truly an inherent problem in a free market? And do we need antitrust laws to combat them?

The clearest definition of monopoly is one seller, with the law prohibiting competitors from entering the market. Local telephone and cable-television companies are examples — they are usually provided a monopoly by their local governmental officials — that is, they are made the only provider of the service in a certain locale — and competition is prohibited by the local governing body. Obviously, this is not a monopoly arising in a free market since it is the government not the market that is dictating the number of suppliers. The best way to get competition in these types of activities is to remove the legal restrictions on market entry — which, by the way, is happening in some cable-television markets, which has resulted in a decrease in prices.

Some domestic firms are monopolies or new-monopolies because our government restricts foreign firms from competing against them. Again, these monopolies are artificial — that is, caused by government — and can be eliminated by ending all tariffs and import restrictions.

Some business organizations spend years, even decades, earning consumer support. They produce innovative products which find favor with consumers; and they price their products correctly. The result is that they earn a significant share of the market. Competitors and left-wing university professors are prone to call such firms "monopolies." But they are mistaken — the market-share positions that these firms earn are entirely a consequence of efficient firm management and consumer satisfaction. And nothing is more deserving of praise than a business that is able to increase its market share in a free and open market.

Ah, but won't firms that have earned high market share use their "power" to restrict output thereby raising prices? They might attempt to do that. But that sort of behavior will quickly attract competitors from both within and without the industry. Thus, the result will be that consumers will increasingly turn to other suppliers. Indeed, nothing will encourage competition more than a dominant firm acting "dumb." Therefore, dominant firms are far more Rely to attempt to lower their costs and prices in order to maintain their market positions. And that of course, is precisely the sort of competitive behavior we consumers want!

But can't firms collude and fix prices in free markets? The answer again is — they are free to try. Certainly there have been numerous instances of firms attempting to "stabilize" markets through price-fixing agreements. But most credible college professors will inform their students that historically such attempts have been abject failures. For while there are incentives to fix prices, there are even stronger incentives to cheat on price-fixing agreements — that is, incentives to continue competing for higher revenues. Most of the classic antitrust conspiracies have had little effect on market prices. The myth that firms historically have succeeded in fixing prices is exactly that — a myth.

Let's go back to the Standard Oil "monopoly." Haven't we been taught that Standard Oil monopolized in restraint of trade? Isn't this the prime example that is provided in support of antitrust laws? The little-known truth is that when the government took Standard Oil to court in 1907, Standard Oil's market share had been declining for a decade. Far from being a "monopoly," Standard's share of petroleum refining was approximately 64% at the time of trial. Moreover, there were at least 147 other domestic oil-refining competitors in the market — and some of these were large, vertically integrated firms such as Texaco, Gulf Oil, and Sun. Kerosene outputs had expanded enormously (contrary to usual monopolistic conduct); and prices for kerosene had fallen from more than $2 per gallon in the early 1860s to approximately six cents per gallon at the time of the trial. So much for the myth of the Standard Oil "monopoly."

Should people be concerned about monopolies? Of course they should. But we must understand the true source and causes of monopolies — governmental barriers to free and open competition. The solution to the monopoly problem, then, lies not in antitrust laws (which should be repealed) but in the repeal of all governmental barriers to free and open trade.

Dominick Armentano is professor of economics at the University of Hartford and is the author of The Myths of Antitrust and Antitrust and Monopoly. He also serves on the board of trustees of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0592c.asp

[HAL 9000 96]

In other words, social engineering through the tax code. It's wrong and un-American.

And it is especially wrong and un-American when the recipients of the benefits of that social engineering are those that need it the least as is the case today.

I think what Gary and many on the Right fail to recognize or acknowledge is that money is power and any concentration of power in this country is counter to it's democracy. If for the sake of argument, government were to completely step back and just allow market forces to shape our economy, we'd see a concentration of power in wealth into a small portion of the population (which actually has happened to a certain degree). An economic feudalism where only the strongest thrive. I've heard Gary say that he espouses to the principal of 'might makes right', so I can imagine that belief transcends into economics as well. However, he only needs to look at history to see what kind of natural events take place once the concentration of power and wealth is in the hands of a few. Ironically, that was the catelyst which sparked the birth of this nation...which is why the Founding Fathers had great foresight in wanting to avoid a concentration of power into the hands of a few.

BS. This country was founded as a response to a government that didn't respond to the people. Taxation without representation I do believe. There was nothing about hating the rich as you seem to do. With todays punitive taxes it is starting to get that way again. True we have representation, but no mater what we do our taxes keep going up to feed the federal monster we created.

And letting the sharks do what they want is going to ensure the 'people' are responded to? And what rich are we referring to? Those that had legitimate control over their colonies or those in the colonies that didn't want to be the colonials? Either way its a definition of convenience.

Right now we are paying for a war that is not representative. Or right, I am wrong. Our kids and grandkids will be doing that. Against their political will most likely.

Common sense and proper foresight will go a longer way in preventing these monsters from controlling our form of government. Democracy aside.

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm glad you brought that up....it was good 'ol Republican Teddy Roosevelt who was the Big Trust Buster. Somehow, the Republican Party needs to find itself again.

What he did was wrong. Just because a rep from 100 years ago did something doesn't make it right with me. But now that you bring it up the worst president of all time really started this whole mess. FDR started this country down the road it finds itself on right now. It made the people and business alike get used to the idea of suckling on the big government teat.

You must be joking. You think Teddy Roosevelt was wrong? How did you come to that conclusion???

The government has no right to break up business's because they think they got to big. It's just wrong. The government should just stay out of the way and let the market decide what is right.

All this espouses is the destruction of the United States of America. Do you want a United States of America or a Conglomerate of Divided Companies of America?

[GaryC 7]

And letting the sharks do what they want is going to ensure the 'people' are responded to? And what rich are we referring to? Those that had legitimate control over their colonies or those in the colonies that didn't want to be the colonials? Either way its a definition of convenience.

Right now we are paying for a war that is not representative. Or right, I am wrong. Our kids and grandkids will be doing that. Against their political will most likely.

Common sense and proper foresight will go a longer way in preventing these monsters from controlling our form of government. Democracy aside.

Not true. Our elected government authorized the war. You may not agree with it but your elected officials did sign off on it. If you don't like it then vote for someone else.

I'm glad you brought that up....it was good 'ol Republican Teddy Roosevelt who was the Big Trust Buster. Somehow, the Republican Party needs to find itself again.

What he did was wrong. Just because a rep from 100 years ago did something doesn't make it right with me. But now that you bring it up the worst president of all time really started this whole mess. FDR started this country down the road it finds itself on right now. It made the people and business alike get used to the idea of suckling on the big government teat.

You must be joking. You think Teddy Roosevelt was wrong? How did you come to that conclusion???

The government has no right to break up business's because they think they got to big. It's just wrong. The government should just stay out of the way and let the market decide what is right.

All this espouses is the destruction of the United States of America. Do you want a United States of America or a Conglomerate of Divided Companies of America?

No it does not. A free and open market is the strength of our country. Government intervention will destroy the country. The government should just butt out. The government is the devil here, not the free market.

[HAL 9000 96]

And letting the sharks do what they want is going to ensure the 'people' are responded to? And what rich are we referring to? Those that had legitimate control over their colonies or those in the colonies that didn't want to be the colonials? Either way its a definition of convenience.

Right now we are paying for a war that is not representative. Or right, I am wrong. Our kids and grandkids will be doing that. Against their political will most likely.

Common sense and proper foresight will go a longer way in preventing these monsters from controlling our form of government. Democracy aside.

Not true. Our elected government authorized the war. You may not agree with it but your elected officials did sign off on it. If you don't like it then vote for someone else.

I'm glad you brought that up....it was good 'ol Republican Teddy Roosevelt who was the Big Trust Buster. Somehow, the Republican Party needs to find itself again.

What he did was wrong. Just because a rep from 100 years ago did something doesn't make it right with me. But now that you bring it up the worst president of all time really started this whole mess. FDR started this country down the road it finds itself on right now. It made the people and business alike get used to the idea of suckling on the big government teat.

You must be joking. You think Teddy Roosevelt was wrong? How did you come to that conclusion???

The government has no right to break up business's because they think they got to big. It's just wrong. The government should just stay out of the way and let the market decide what is right.

All this espouses is the destruction of the United States of America. Do you want a United States of America or a Conglomerate of Divided Companies of America?

No it does not. A free and open market is the strength of our country. Government intervention will destroy the country. The government should just butt out. The government is the devil here, not the free market.

1. I already voted for Obama.

So it is very true for me as a member of the majority now and someone whom voted against irresponsible, monster like political behavior back then.

and

2. The point of having a central federal government is the prevention of abuse and 50 different interpretations of what all want to do within the Union. Thinking retrogradely is counterproductive to the maintenance of a united nation.

[GaryC 7]

And letting the sharks do what they want is going to ensure the 'people' are responded to? And what rich are we referring to? Those that had legitimate control over their colonies or those in the colonies that didn't want to be the colonials? Either way its a definition of convenience.

Right now we are paying for a war that is not representative. Or right, I am wrong. Our kids and grandkids will be doing that. Against their political will most likely.

Common sense and proper foresight will go a longer way in preventing these monsters from controlling our form of government. Democracy aside.

Not true. Our elected government authorized the war. You may not agree with it but your elected officials did sign off on it. If you don't like it then vote for someone else.

I'm glad you brought that up....it was good 'ol Republican Teddy Roosevelt who was the Big Trust Buster. Somehow, the Republican Party needs to find itself again.

What he did was wrong. Just because a rep from 100 years ago did something doesn't make it right with me. But now that you bring it up the worst president of all time really started this whole mess. FDR started this country down the road it finds itself on right now. It made the people and business alike get used to the idea of suckling on the big government teat.

You must be joking. You think Teddy Roosevelt was wrong? How did you come to that conclusion???

The government has no right to break up business's because they think they got to big. It's just wrong. The government should just stay out of the way and let the market decide what is right.

All this espouses is the destruction of the United States of America. Do you want a United States of America or a Conglomerate of Divided Companies of America?

No it does not. A free and open market is the strength of our country. Government intervention will destroy the country. The government should just butt out. The government is the devil here, not the free market.

1. I already voted for Obama.

So it is very true for me as a member of the majority now and someone whom voted against irresponsible, monster like political behavior back then.

and

2. The point of having a central federal government is the prevention of abuse and 50 different interpretations of what all want to do within the Union. Thinking retrogradely is counterproductive to the maintenance of a united nation.

1. Thats your bad judgment. And it remains to be seen if you are in the majority. I think McCain will win later this year and the fact he wants a "hands off" approach to the economy is a point in his favor.

2. That is not the intent of the founding fathers. The founding fathers wanted a very limited federal government. That is why the bill of rights spells out what the government CANNOT do rather what it can do. Your idea of the role of government isn't in line with the constitution or the ideals of what this country was founded on.