I Want To Be A Republican So Badly
Republicans are the worst.
Okay, are you significantly riled up yet? I was once told that if you had to give a speech, you should start it with an incendiary first line to captivate your audience. Given that 97% of TFM’s readership identifies as a Republican according to a poll I just made up, I think I accomplished that. In reality, what I mean is that I’d really like to vote the party line, but the party is really fucking me. I know, I usually tell dick jokes, but I think it’s time for some real talk.
Here’s the thing. I was born and raised in Texas, in a socially conservative family that didn’t talk about politics. In fact, my parents went out of their way to not tell me and my brothers their political views. But because of my surroundings, I was a straight up neo-con from age 14-18. I voted for Dubya in my sixth grade election. Then I went to college, started a triple major in economics, finance, and accounting, read Ayn Rand, became a libertarian, and worked on Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign. I thought I had it all figured out. Hell, I was the editor of our business review, and made my article advocating for the gold standard a front page piece. Then I switched to a straight political science major with a focus in international relations and learned some sense.
So, seven years later, where am I now, politically? Well, if you ask my roommates, I’m a liberal, apparently. In spite of the many times I’ve tried to explain my political leanings to them, they just assume because I’m willing to at least entertain the economics of single payer healthcare, I’m clearly a left-wing ding dong who thinks Jon Stewart is a non-biased source of news for young people. But in fact, I have been, and will continue to be, registered as a Republican. Why? Because I’m really hoping that the party that used to have most things right can get back to that point. I consider myself a conservative, and I believe that the party that allegedly represents that has been fucking up for at least the last 25 years. Here’s why.
The economy is allegedly what Republicans stake their beliefs on. Lower taxes, balanced budgets, deregulation, lower government spending, individual responsibility, and privatization. The problem is that some of those things have become more popular over others in recent iterations of Republican control. Lower taxes is great as a concept, but we still have to pay for the shit that we’re committing to. So we should commit to fewer things, right? Fox News pundits love to mention the National Debt Clock so much, I’m pretty sure they would let it fuck their spouse if it wanted to. You wanna know one of the main reasons why our debt is so insane? Military spending. As a dude who hates Al-Qaeda and wanted just military action against its supporters, Iraq was a stupid fucking decision, and has cost us more tax dollars than any meager social safety net has.
Speaking of social safety nets, let’s start with entitlements. Social Security is broken. Republicans seem to trumpet this fact more than they try to fix it, but I’ll give them the win, given that Democrats don’t even seem to be worried. Regular welfare is so small compared to the actual problem that I don’t even care. Unemployment and food stamps become a politicized issue every time a conservative candidate talks (welfare queens and all that), but the percentage of the budget taken up by those programs is so insignificant compared to the abuses of the system that it ends up lower on my totem pole of problems than the Kardashians. That’s right, I’d rather government intervention in reality TV show programming before we touch poverty entitlements — that’s how insignificant they are.
Okay, so social issues. The big three are gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and abortion. This is where age is a factor. By the way, for how acceptable weed was for the entirety of the ‘60s and ‘70s, I still don’t understand how this is still an issue. You’d think that Baby Boomers would have smoked enough weed in their day to not give a shit about it. Either way, the answer to all three is easy, and conveniently the same. If you wanna piss off old people, who are admittedly the Republican base right now (I wonder why), then sure, go the wrong way on these. But if you want to survive as a party, guess what? Not only do we as young people not care about any of those three issues, you’re actually on the wrong side of all of them. Even my most right-wing friends are cool with dudes marrying dudes, smoking green on the reg, and helping their one-night-stand with the cost of “taking care of it.”
Young people are your future. You can play to win, or you can play to keep winning. The Cavaliers traded Wiggins for Love. How did that work out for them? Well, Love got hurt, Wiggins balled out, LeBron’s only got probably three great years left, and then your organization’s gonna be shocked when you go back to being a sports punchline for giving up your team’s future in favor of ill-fated short-term success. And for what? Your best player to put everything he had on the court and fall short? Glad that worked out for you.
Another thing: Learn to talk. You’re a fucking politician, you placate people for a living, so I don’t understand how you have made it to your position in life, and still are able to say that women are not physically able to get pregnant from rape. I know high school dropouts who know human anatomy/physiology better than that. And that’s not an isolated incident. I’m convinced there is a pandemic of foot-in-mouth disease among Republican politicians these days, and if the only prescription is anything other than more cowbell, we might be fucked.
I have a lot more to say about this, so y’all can probably expect more from me about this subject in the future. I haven’t even talked about guns, the environment, campaign finance reform, privacy, or most importantly, foreign policy (because it requires a full column of its own). The point is, I’m an old-school conservative in most ways. Barry Goldwater and Grover Cleveland are my dudes. I just also happen to live in the 21st century, and I ask that the people I vote for act accordingly..
Image via Shutterstock

A-fucking-men. However, fuck Obamacare
10 years ago at 10:12 amEasy there, sparky
10 years ago at 10:37 amI’ve always been convinced that if Repubs cut military spending in half and shied away from unimportant social issues that the left harps on to make the right look stupid, they’d win every election with at least 90% support.
10 years ago at 10:17 amExactly. If Republicans were just like “alright – gay marriage fine, abortion fine, let’s cut spending while maintaining an armed forces that can get the job done, and then kick back and enjoy our country”, how would they not sweep the elections? The only thing holding them back is stupid social issues which I could not care less about – legal or illegal they don’t matter to me, so just do what the people want – legalize them. What’s the fucking deal?
10 years ago at 10:42 amWell actually the majority of Americans are against immigration and the illegals coming to our towns and ruining our schools. I understand the south already has below average schools, but in New England we value education, safety, and our taxes going to Americans who need it, not illegals. So you can feel free to keep them in whatever pine barren you come from.
10 years ago at 11:04 amYou’re a moron.
10 years ago at 1:47 pmI’m pretty sure he was referring to the social issues being legal or illegal (gay marriage, abortion, marijuana).
10 years ago at 1:57 pmHuge, huge douche.
10 years ago at 4:17 pmgoldmanass speaks the truth!
10 years ago at 5:52 pmOh God, not you again…
10 years ago at 12:20 pmGoldmanAss gets hazed a lot.
10 years ago at 12:18 amThat’s what I’m saying. Let the kids have their candy bar so the adults can get shit done.
10 years ago at 11:04 pmThis exact strategy has been happening for a century. We need a reset not more capitulation. Freedom on principle is great. I hope it doesn’t turn into cave on all the issues important to society
10 years ago at 11:34 amThey would, but military spending getting cut in half would be insane. 20% is fine, but mainly, it just needs to be spent more efficiently. They’re talking about sending the B-52s and and A-10s to the graveyard, when they are still completely serviceable. Put all research into the SR-72 and finally getting the fucking F-35s off the ground. Gun manufacturers can compete in an open market to make the best gun and get the contract, and ATK is more than capable of creating cutting-edge mortars and missiles without huge government subsidies. If the spending gets more efficient, a 20-30% cut would happen naturally.
10 years ago at 10:43 amPersonally I think we could use more military spending and less programs helping poors.
10 years ago at 10:48 amFuck you. Tech guy, please blackball this fuck.
10 years ago at 10:51 amWell that didn’t just backfire up your ass…
10 years ago at 12:33 pmI got lapped a few times, worse things have happened.
10 years ago at 1:15 pmAgree 100%
10 years ago at 10:58 amAlright chief we get it, you grew up rich and don’t care about other people. You’re the fucking fratiest
10 years ago at 11:16 am“Don’t care about other people.” You described Democrats perfectly. Public assistance programs don’t help the impoverished, they create an incentive for failure. Nor are they even trying to help the poor, just buying their votes for the advancement of their political agenda.
10 years ago at 1:44 pmThe fact of the matter is the “incentive for failure” you talk about isnt intended for that, its supposed to be a safty net so you arent starving on the street. You cant blame a party that actually had peoples best interests in mind, because some other people are shitty and abuse the system.
10 years ago at 3:02 pmYou’re mistaking the will for the deed. It doesn’t matter what a program’s intentions are, only the results.
10 years ago at 8:35 pmBut you just attacked their intentions right up there. Get your argument straight guy
10 years ago at 6:08 pmThe toilet paper of social issues is “best interests”. People will gladly wipe their ass with it if it means not having to get their hands dirty.
10 years ago at 1:30 pmWe currently account for 60% of the world’s military budget. The fact that ‘fiscal conservatives’ don’t talk about this more is mind-boggling.
10 years ago at 11:04 amBullshit. That takes nowhere into account the non-public spending of countries like China, Russia, etc.
10 years ago at 11:24 amGood point Ted. The US Government has to actually itemize where the defense spending is going (besides secret programs) and if they didn’t the media would shit a brick. Countries like Russia and China don’t respect the their own laws and spend money with zero accountability.
10 years ago at 3:48 pmWe are also 99% of the security for the worlds shipping lanes. Enabling all of the trade and commerce for the world economy to be conducted in the safest way possible. Our Naval forces are already struggling with outdated degraded equipment. Yes we spend more the the next 26 countries on our military but without that spending the entire world economy crashes, no way around it. What the left fails to realize is that the only way we keep our way of life is by maintaining our Military forces.
10 years ago at 10:22 pm2 things:
1. I agree with this. We spend so much on military that even a 20-25% cut would generate a lot of money that would be more useful elsewhere. 50% is a little ridiculous though.
2. Whether you disagree with Sterling or not, I’m glad this was written. I enjoy articles that create thoughtful comments and allow us to discuss these issues with each other. Seeing comments that say “fuck you I hope you get herpes” gets a little old.
10 years ago at 11:21 amThe F-35, as cool as it is, is a money pit. The Air Force is attempting to make a single air frame that can do it all. Light bombing and close air support, in addition to everything else a normal fighter jet would do. The technology on it is unbelievable. But for all its technical prowess, if it goes up against a weapons system more advanced than Iraq’s (Russia or China, just as an example) it’s wingspan is too short to outmaneuver a Surface-to-Air missile. The F-22 is a solution to problem that doesn’t exist yet. It’s that freaking good. We still have an edge. The most economical thing to do would be to scrap the 35 altogether. Put the technology in the still relevant and dominant f-16 and f-18. Cut your losses, and then use whatever research you obtained to start on an even better air frame and system. Better that than watch a 178 million dollar plane get blown out of the sky.
10 years ago at 11:57 amI’ve seen a lot of misinformed anti F-35 bandwagoners on the internet, but you might take the cake. I’ll probably get lapped to oblivion for this, but I about had an aneurysm reading this comment. Here we go.
1. It’s wingspan is too short to outmaneuver a surface to air missile? What does that even mean? Wingspan has nothing to do with increased maneuverability. On top of that, no aircraft can outmaneuver modern SAMs once they’re locked on. These days, SAMs are only defeated by flying low, using electronic countermeasures/stealth, or with a long range standoff weapon system. No aircraft can outmaneuver a mach 5 missile capable of 30G bat turns. Technology and tactics are what beats modern SAMs. So if you admit the technology on the F-35 is incredible, why would you jump to the conclusion that it would be blown out of the sky? Do you have some insight into the classified details of the F-35’s jamming and stealth capabilities that the rest of us don’t? I doubt it. So please refrain from spewing incoherent nonsense about wingspan and maneuverability.
2. The F-22 is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist yet? Not sure where you got this idea either. Russia and China already have 4.5+ gen fighters that are operational and can give our 4th gen legacy fleet a run for their money.. if not beat them. The F-22 is absolutely necessary right now, and there aren’t nearly enough of them to call it a day and rest on our laurels.
3. The F-16 and F-18 are not as dominant as you think, and you can’t keep upgrading aircraft indefinitely. Both the F-16 and 18 are 70’s designs that are severely showing their age. Are you aware that the entire air force F-16 training pipeline was shut down temporarily last year because they found structural fatigue cracks in the fuselages of 80 aircraft? That’s what happens when you continue to fly a plane 20 years past its intended service life. You can’t continue to remodel and retrofit forever. Not to mention, most modifications have to be external (take the SNIPER pod for example.) Every time you bolt something new onto an aircraft you increase weight and drag. F-16s and F-18s are turning into pigs because they’re being continuously retrofitted with more external crap than they can carry. The F-35 has all the capabilities of these upgrades and more, and it’s all carried internally which helps aircraft performance and stealth.
4. Lastly, I’d like to talk about this sentence: “The Air Force is attempting to make a single air frame that can do it all. Light bombing and close air support, in addition to everything else a normal fighter jet would do.” The term you’re looking for is “multirole fighter.” I find it odd that you would criticize the F-35 for being designed for a variety of roles but then go on to praise the “still dominant” F-16 and F-18. You do realize both of those aircraft are multirole fighters right? They both regularly perform light bombing and close air support “in addition to everything else a normal fighter jet would do.” The “jack of all trades master of none” argument doesn’t hold much water when the two aircraft you propose upgrading instead of making the F-35 are also multirole fighters.
10 years ago at 8:32 pmThe main issue that we face with military spending is that some of product markets feature monopolistic competition. Take, for example, jets and bombers like you had previously mentioned. Because these are highly technical items to produce, providers like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have an incredible amount of supplier power when determining the price of their products. It’s because of this that any ranking you look at showing top government contractors by dollar amount those two will be sitting at the top. They can charge essentially whatever they want because the government needs fighter jets and bombers, and they are the only place to get them (ignoring Northrup-Grunmann). If this market was as competitive as, say, the gun market, the government would have a significantly larger amount of buyer power when determining price.
10 years ago at 12:52 pmI’ve had an economics teacher explain that it’s not necessarily spending on development and technology as it is maintenance of bases around the world that really aren’t needed anymore.
10 years ago at 10:50 amIn my opinion, the military spending is so high because we are looked at as the “worlds police” if something is going on in one country, the U.S. is there to help out and that’s what makes our country so great, but that’s also part of the problem and why our military spending is so high. Sure there are some bases that aren’t needed anymore and I do think we need to cut back on military spending and concentrate on domestic problems, but the fact that we are looked at as the worlds police I think has become a problem, now every country that isn’t China, Russia or Iran for the most part is calling us to help militarily and that, for the most part is why out spending is so high. We need to start letting countries deal with problems in their own and that’s when we will be able to cut back on military spending
10 years ago at 11:09 amFiscally conservative/Socially liberal is the only combination that makes sense for more freedom, less government, etc. Unfortunately, most young people don’t realize that if they believe in this combination they are actually LIBERTARIANS, either because they haven’t taken a real Political Science class or they’re just scared of venturing away from the typical Rep/Dem affiliations. Because this is currently the case, Libertarian candidates are essentially forced to run within the Republican Party. See: Ron Paul.
10 years ago at 11:34 amSomehow your username makes this comment seems silly
10 years ago at 1:03 pmYou have to remember that Libratarianism isn’t exactly “socially liberal.” Let’s use Ron Paul since you brought him up, he’s very much pro-life and pro traditional marriage. Paul however does believe that abortion should be handled at the state level and that marriage should be privatized. Librarians don’t have to be socially liberal they just have to believe in smaller federal government and states rights.
10 years ago at 4:25 pm…Librarians?
10 years ago at 11:02 amDamn iPhone, eh fuck it you knew what I meant.
10 years ago at 1:09 pmLibertarians are a bit ahead of their time. They’ll be in full swing by the time we are old fucks. By then, the majority of people with realize “Dude, I don’t care what you do with your personal life, just don’t fuck things up for everyone else.” Their tag line should be Dr. Doback telling his kids “I don’t. Give. A fuck.”
10 years ago at 1:36 pmSuch is easier said than done. If you take spending from one to boost others, you have to realize the consequences of both. In terms of DoD spending, it’s not just money spent overseas – it’s training, knowledge, proper equipment, logistical needs, and medical readiness for servicemembers – things that translate to safety and combat effectiveness – and have economic positives in the civilian sector.
The average person doesn’t realize that units already worry about not having the funds to conduct or send members to necessary training, that even basic “soldier skills” suffer because there’s not enough personnel or equipment available. It’s one thing to look at a unit and have them conduct a mission with fewer costs and fewer personnel, and another to realize what that actually does to their ability to operate.
Just wanted to give some perspective on aspects of defense spending that sometimes aren’t realized.
10 years ago at 7:18 pmOh who gives a shit about you Sterling, stop posting these shit articles and let the intern out of your sex dungeon so he can post Fail Friday.
10 years ago at 10:19 amI want to take you seriously Sterling, but this article is so full of half-truths and outright lies that it’s simply impossible to do. Are there serious problems with the Republican Party? Yes. But articles like this which mix and match wholly unrelated policy issues and tie them together with a Lebron James reference simply won’t get it done. And finally, not to get technical, but if you claim to be a Barry Goldwater conservative but also support single-payer health care and higher taxes when they’re at an all time historical high, you’re probably not a Barry Goldwater conservative. Just saying. Bring back the forums.
10 years ago at 10:21 amTaxes aren’t at an all time high. In the 20s, some of the richest fell into a tax bracket of 90% soooo…
10 years ago at 11:47 amI gave you an A for due diligence. You just can’t leave them hanging like that though.
10 years ago at 12:03 pmhttp://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/taxrevenuepercentGDP.png
10 years ago at 12:08 pmDismissing a policy because it is socialist should be your bread and butter
10 years ago at 11:40 amIs It really that bad if everyone has the ability to get health care? Cant it just be good for everyone, we could force the medical industry to stop charging insane amounts of money for their services ex. $600 ambulance rides.
10 years ago at 3:28 pmEveryone having the ability to get healthcare is a great intention, but a single payer system causes more complications than it solves. The first example that comes to mind is Canadians waiting months for a simple appointment with their family doctor vs. my current ability to get in usually the same day I call.
The bigger issue of cost though has been the result of TOO MUCH insurance. The patient has been removed from the product and no longer cares what the cost is, because, “Insurance will pay for it!” No one cares what something costs when someone else is paying for it. Scripts and tests are just billed to the insurance companies and the patient never feels the need to question how expensive something is. It messes up the whole supply and demand system. Historically, people paid out of pocket for routine doctor visits and treatments, and only carried “catastrophic” insurance policies with high deductibles. They cared way more how much the little things cost. We need to find a way to reconnect the patient with the treatment as far as cost is concerned, and the medical industry will then be forced to reexamine price structure.
Tl;dr: Healthcare is currently an open bar for a lot of people, and everyone is ordering Johnny Walker Blue when Red would have been just fine.
10 years ago at 11:26 am“Lebron James still has a good three *inches* left”
10 years ago at 7:02 pm…and a deep sense of personal responsibility.
Dismissing socialist policies just because they are socialist is not a bad thing. I certainly don’t like seeing other people suffer, but socialism as a foundation of government removes the personal responsibility from individual citizens to take care of their neighbor. When we know we paid our taxes, and the government is going to take care of something, we are not spurred to action like we would be if we knew it was up to us individually to help one another. This is perfectly exemplified by Grover Cleveland’s, a democrat, response to a bill passed by Congress to give federal aid to some farmers suffering from a drought in Texas I believe.
“I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”
Those “fellow citizens” ended up donating ten times the amount requested by the bill Cleveland vetoed. Once again proving that when individuals personally sacrifice to help each other, it not only makes us better people, it makes us a better country. It forces us to notice need instead of simply hiring corrupt politicians to notice it only when they can exploit, publicize, or politicize it.
10 years ago at 11:58 amThe problem with Healthcare in the US is that our current system will pay for everything, even a check-up with your doctor when you have allergies or a cold/some non threatening disease. Healthcare should only cover life altering/threatening health problems. Maybe then people won’t milk the system and go see a doctor everytime they sneeze.
10 years ago at 7:18 pmThe problem is us republicans need to stop pointing fingers at problems and start coming up with intuitive solutions.
10 years ago at 10:22 amThe problem with republicans??? Yeah, because there is nobody who dishes the blame off to others when things go wrong , but he is willing to accept all the praise and glory as soon as anything is perceived positively. Of course, I couldn’t be talking about the holy one (president). Change republicans to politicians, and you’re good.
10 years ago at 12:00 pm“There are no solutions, only trade offs.” Thomas Sowell
10 years ago at 1:39 pmStellar commentary. So good, in fact, that the mainstream media would immediately dismiss each of your valid points as hateful and ignorant. Well done sir.
10 years ago at 10:24 amA couple thoughts, though I’ll be brief since I’m on the app and I’ll also avoid political issues:
10 years ago at 10:25 amOne doesn’t have to fully agree with every position in a party to belong to the party. In today’s world of hyper-partisanship people seem to believe that 100% support for either republicans or democrats is required but that isn’t supposed to be the case. The party has its use for being a collective bargaining power to bring together somewhat like-minded people but nowadays only the extreme fringes get their voices heard. This is especially the case whenever the media is concerned, and they can portray either party any way they want until the majority of the country believes that republicans are the white stupid racists and that democrats are enlightened saints (Jon Stewart does a great job in this regard). There are plenty of stupid people and opinions on both sides, but republicans are constantly under the spotlight and being portrayed as “-ists”(sexists, racists, classists, etc) even though 99.9% of the time they really aren’t. One thing I noticed whenever watching Stewart and Colbert is that when they’re taking a non-biased news clip about a non-political event, it’s 9 times out of 10 from Fox News. Not saying Fox is unbiased, but that gives credence to how much they’re watching it waiting for a mistake.
Fox News is unbiased you fucking idiot. They’re fair and balanced and if you don’t believe that you’re just a moron.
10 years ago at 10:31 amHoly shit Hogarth just kill yourself already.
10 years ago at 10:38 amI’m a conservative and I’ve seen instances when they do stretch the truth or leave out details. They definitely cover more conservative issues and events. It’s by far the best news channel though.
10 years ago at 10:40 amThen you’re just not seeing the big picture. Give me one example where they stretch the truth.
10 years ago at 10:43 amI ain’t going to spoon feed you just type it in on Google
10 years ago at 10:45 amFox News definitely has a right leaning bias. Definitely not as crazy as some crazy left wingers propose it is and that if you watch it you’re basically Hitler. The way I see it, every piece of media, whether it’s tv, print,internet or etc. has a bias these days and Fox chose their side. Watch whatever you want but don’t act like what they say is the word of God because it absolutely isn’t. I think the best option is to expose yourself to all different news sources and make your own conclusions.
10 years ago at 12:42 pmMotion to blackball, because for fucks sake this kid sucks.
10 years ago at 10:41 amHomie went from – 2 to – 24 realll quick.
10 years ago at 10:43 amLook, I enjoy Fox News as much as the next guy. I do think they have good points on issues. However, if you can’t acknowledge the complete lack of, or disdain for, liberal views on the network then you’re probably one of the people contributing to the downfall of this country. Mostly due to an extremely liberal minded class of college aged and young adults with a trogolodytic understanding of how this country was set up and is supposed to work.
10 years ago at 10:44 amplease please please be kidding. I can’t handle this level of stupid sober
10 years ago at 8:48 pmI dont see the major media outlets ‘bias’ as their biggest issue. It’s not like the views of staunch conservatives on Fox and that of the supposed liberals on NBC are actually that different in substance. They see their role as unapologetically advancing the government’s interests and the propaganda set out by them.
10 years ago at 1:03 pmIf you don’t vote Republican then just get out of the country please.
10 years ago at 10:26 amI hate your soul.
10 years ago at 10:43 amWhat are you a liberal? #AMERICA #FUCKYEAH #FREEDOM
10 years ago at 10:54 amExcept we don’t need high taxes to get shit done. Research the “Laffer Curve.” Tax revenue peaks when the top income tax bracket is around 25%. If you tax less, you don’t get as much potential revenue, if you tax more, people find loopholes, move out of the country, or simply don’t work as hard. The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates on the developed world (around 40% I believe) so Microsoft decided to move its headquarters to Ireland which had a 13% corporate income tax. Think of the billions in revenue the US could have had but decided to punish corporations instead.
10 years ago at 10:27 amWhen I was a legal intern for a company last year I had to research how large companies did their taxes, and 90% of the biggest companies in America all do that Ireland trick. Every Google agreement is with “Google Ireland,” it’s absurd. End the loophole or lower our corporate tax down to competitive levels.
10 years ago at 10:44 amBasically Supply-Side Ideology, and lower corporate taxes so big companies return to the states instead of residing in Canada, China and India
10 years ago at 11:01 amCompanies will continue to have factories in nations with cheaper labor like China. There’s no way for a developed nation to compete with cheap (maybe slave) labor in other nations. Soon, kids toys will probably say “made in Indonesia” or some other country of the like because labor costs are rising in China. However, we can compete with other developed nations for corporations’ skilled labor facilities. Alas, voters would rather vote for politicians who punish “greedy” companies. Who needs tax revenue and jobs when you can enforce the ideology of the lazy and jealous?
10 years ago at 12:38 pmManufacturing is picking up in the US and we can now compete with China due to Robotics. We now have machinery that can manufacture much quicker than a laborer in China and without tiring for a cost of about $2 an hour
10 years ago at 7:14 pmSomething for you gents who identify as conservative to consider: it’s true that the Laffer Curve maximizes government revenue, but why would an American conservative, who means to preserve the tradition of limited government, want to maximize government revenue? Shouldn’t we want as little money going to the state as possible? You don’t need much to take care of courts, police, fire, and military defense. Frankly, we should encourage tax loopholes. As Ludwig Von Mises said, “Loopholes are what allows capitalism to breathe.”
10 years ago at 2:39 pmDunkin Donuts just reincorporated in Canada for lower corporate taxes. Our corporate taxes are higher than CANADA!
10 years ago at 4:05 pmWe don’t enforce half of that 12.5%, its a complete joke, and our country is suffering as a result (increasing income tax to pay off debts- which we shouldn’t have in the first place). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
10 years ago at 12:53 pm40% is too high but extremely low corporation tax is not the solution either.
Something I’ve found to be quite hypocritical when it comes to extreme conservatives is that they prefer a more limited government while wanting laws against abortions, weed, and gay marriage simultaneously. If you want limited government, why are you trying to control private aspects via government policy? Get your shit together.
10 years ago at 10:30 amBecause those are the types of things government SHOULD limit.
10 years ago at 10:33 amSHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!! Hogarth, it’s opinions like yours in both politicians and the general public that push a lot of people to vote democratic. And really you can’t blame them too much when your opinion is SO FUCKING STUPID.
10 years ago at 10:41 amYeah, because our tax money should be going towards what kind of fuck parts people mush together instead of things that matter.
Please, get the fuck out of here.
10 years ago at 10:49 amHe’s not promoting the idea of having sodomy itself (I.e. “Mushing parts”)be illegal. Make sure you form you arguments accurately or else you look unintelligent too.
10 years ago at 8:10 pmTechnically those laws are already on the books.
10 years ago at 10:42 amI think a lot of conservatives just want that stuff to be decided state by state rather than by the federal government.
10 years ago at 11:56 amYou Sir, hit the nail on the head. There are too many ‘conservatives’ who really just want less taxes but they want tyrannical type laws against everything they disagree with. They think an arrest means guilt and they want to lock everyone up and throw away the key. These are the people who talk about Liberty but secretly make 10 Crime Stopper calls a year.
10 years ago at 1:44 pmThe thing with some of these issues is constitutionality, mainly gay marriage. The government should not be able to say that two people can’t get married, but they should also not be able to say that two people CAN get married. Using the seperation of church and state, the government should not interfere with specific church policies. Marriage, being a creation of the church that precedes the constitution itself, should not be in any way obstructed by the government. Therefore, what the church chooses to recognize should be what is recognized. The government does not have the power to legalize gay marriage, but it does my have the power to legislate against it. What the government CAN do is legislate a new way to recognize a bond between people of the same sex, for example, civil union. They should also give civil unions the same benefits that come along with marriage, such as tax benefits.
10 years ago at 6:27 pmMarriage originally used to be a contractual agreement, “love” or choices of the two actually being married were never considered. It was one clan giving another clan some form of currency (money loyalty sheep etc…). It was only in the last 200ish years that it became about “love” (other cases its still about currency). You have to go to court to get a divorce. Marriage has always been a legal matter so to say that the government has no right to regulate it is redundant. There have been people being gay since recorded history so who cares if gays get married does it devalue your marriage(when you get married if you arent already)? I dont believe the gonerment should force pastors to start preforming the ceremonies, but if they want to then yes legally you should recognize it. If its between two consenting adults who cares( Sorry Dorn no little boys for you), the fact that it bothers you so much makes me think your favorite sex position is missionary.
10 years ago at 3:21 pmWhere did I say that it bothered me personally? Can you point to any phrase? I was speaking purely to how people consider it smaller government if gay marriage is legalized, when in reality, government does not have the power to rule either way. Yes, a bond between two people has always been recognized since before the church, but it was never defined as “marriage”. The church was the first to define “marriage” as its own. Marriage in the sense of the bond has been around forever, but marriage the sacrament has been is property of the church. Not saying I agree with gay marriage, and I’m not saying I am against gay marriage, I am purely saying that legally, the government has no authority to rule either way.
10 years ago at 1:45 pm1) There are no laws outlawing “gay marriage.” For thousands of years, marriage has consistently been between man and a woman. Governments decided to adopt marriage (which existed in religions far before any governments got involved) in order to encourage the only proven institution to raise a new generation. In fact, gay people are quite capable of being married today in all 50 states if they wish. Any gay man can marry any gay woman, just like the straight one’s can.
2) Many people believe dumping saline on a growing fetus is murder. That it ends the life of a human being. That’s the same rationale that makes murder of adult humans “illegal.”
TLDR moral issues still matter to some.
10 years ago at 8:07 pm