well written explanation of POTUS agenda

[Bulwar]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWQ2NWJkN2M3ZmJjYWQwMDZlMWQyM2FjNWI4ZWJkNGI=#mo re

[literategrunt]

The most succinct evaluation of current policy initiatives I've seen. Things take on a completely different view when you consider cost and resulting national debt an political asset to require longterm policy changes, as I fear the POTUS does. Once benefits are extended they are rarely(if ever) rescinded. It is also worth considering the long-term affects of a (greatly) increased tax rate in a globally competetive business climate. I can't help but wonder where an american born international professional; be they a security professional, attorney or consultant, would choose to declare their residency when facing a 70% income tax rate on all repatrioted income.
I kindly ask for input from those currently facing the question of whether to remain a US citizen and pay the tax or live in a foreign land and enjoy a considerably higher standard of living while 'visiting' as much as allowed by law.
It is important to remember that the tyranny imposed on the colonies from England wasn't slavery of the sort seen in South America or the Subcontinent but rather almost purely financial. Not wanting to pay high taxes(as opposed to cheating etc) isn't selfish, it's American.
just my $.02

[BigNickT]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWQ2NWJkN2M3ZmJjYWQwMDZlMWQyM2FjNWI4ZWJkNGI=#mo re

It's customary to post some sort of opinion along with the article. Simply saying it's well-written is pretty thin. In fact there is a rule about it in the stickies somewhere. I'd recommend you take a look around

Tax out

[Bravo Five Romeo]

I would also argue that it is not well written... unless by "well written" you mean proper grammar and spelling.

The jist or it is that President Obama's plan is not to fix the economy or provide universal healthcare, but to consolidate power for the state and remove individual rights.

Aside from this absurd assumption, which he supports only with his worst case scenario beliefs, the author asserts that any universal healthcare would be comprable to the worst problems of other country's health programs... an assertion he does not support, he simply puts out there.
He also asserts that the massive spending bailouts were not necessary because the economy would have self repaired.
Again, he offers nothing to support that assertion, he just states it as fact and moves on to say that the only reason for the bailouts is for President Obama to consolidate power.

This is not surprising, considering a quick search of the author's past opinion pieces, wherein he refers to the President as "the messiah" and uses Orwellian terms such as "ministry of truth" when referring to the administration.

[morelocks]

I would also argue that it is not well written... unless by "well written" you mean proper grammar and spelling.

The jist or it is that President Obama's plan is not to fix the economy or provide universal healthcare, but to consolidate power for the state and remove individual rights....

The article also has the underlying assumption that the Rep. Party is not doing the same.

Neither party is interested in what is best for America. They are simply interested in consolidating power behind their banner. Without term limits the theme and color will change but it will still be the same song and dance.

[Bulwar]

It's customary to post some sort of opinion along with the article. Simply saying it's well-written is pretty thin. In fact there is a rule about it in the stickies somewhere. I'd recommend you take a look around

Tax out

My apologies. I was simply in a hurry and stuck the link up as I walked out the door.

My opinion is that the author did do a good job of pointing out a possible underlying cause to some of the current administrations actions. Universal healthcare, cap and trade, bailouts, etc all have many well known drawbacks. They may or may not prove to be effective, but given that we already know their potential downside it is reasonable to believe there was an underlying reason for their quick enactment.

Besides the fact that I simply disagree with our current administration I find it frightening that they have managed to push through so much legislation without much, if any, debate or public review.

And no, I don't believe that the republican party is a tremendous improvement. It is my sincere hope that this period in our history will result in a merging of the Libertarian and Republican parties. The Libertarian party can relax some of their isolationist tendencies and the Republican party can stop trying to legislate morality. For me, if you toss in a couple semi honest politicians, that would be pretty freakin' awesome.

[SOTB]

....I find it frightening that they have managed to push through so much legislation without much, if any, debate or public review....I think you might find that historically, POTUS entering a tour bring a wave of public support with them -- enhancing their abilities to push the legislation you refer to. This no matter their being Dems or Reps.

As to without public review, well -- everything is out there, but if the public is too interested in the death of a DJ or washed-up pop singer....

[AJG]

He also asserts that the massive spending bailouts were not necessary because the economy would have self repaired.
Again, he offers nothing to support that assertion, he just states it as fact and moves on to say that the only reason for the bailouts is for President Obama to consolidate power.

While I agree with you that he offers no support, he offers at least as much as the administration has offered that the massive stimulus package was necessary.

[LRS Guy]

I agree the economy would have self repaired, but I have always believed that free markets are far more reslient than any gov offical would give credit for.

Then again I also believe that 90% of all politicans (both parties!) are tend to be dumbass's except in the arena of politics. At least 50% are dunces their too.

[Tracy]

I would also argue that it is not well written... unless by "well written" you mean proper grammar and spelling.

The jist or it is that President Obama's plan is not to fix the economy or provide universal healthcare, but to consolidate power for the state and remove individual rights.

I think the article sums up what we've seen so far; eclusive of the histrionics.

Greater national debt from bailing out the wrong group of people.
None of the key political leadership, which is also the majority, read or can comment on the entire Health Care Act.
Increase in the cost of living because we have to "Go Green Right Now".
Aside from this absurd assumption, which he supports only with his worst case scenario beliefs, the author asserts that any universal healthcare would be comprable to the worst problems of other country's health programs... an assertion he does not support, he simply puts out there.

He also asserts that the massive spending bailouts were not necessary because the economy would have self repaired.

Again, he offers nothing to support that assertion, he just states it as fact and moves on to say that the only reason for the bailouts is for President Obama to consolidate power.

Right now, worst-case scenarios are all we're seeing. Again, the Democratic Leadership in control of this country can't even speak intelligently and convicingly of the need for Nationalized Health Care. Commentators are NOT required to support their assertions. Elected officials are EXPECTED to support the assertions, especially when it affects core lifestyles and national budget.

Every business official I correspond with are of the same opinion: The economy would have self-repaired. It would have been very painful, but recoverable. Let's not forget that fundemental changes in how business was done occurred in 1999 and 2000; under the leadership of President Clinton. The direct result of which is our current economic crisis. That is black-letter fact.

This is not surprising, considering a quick search of the author's past opinion pieces, wherein he refers to the President as "the messiah" and uses Orwellian terms such as "ministry of truth" when referring to the administration.

Again, I submit it's irrelevant. The author threw it out there; and on the surface he's exactly right.

According to Democrats and Liberals alike, because I'm a Male WASP, I alone am responsible for all the Bad Things going on in the country. My sacrafices, efforts, and work ethic mean nothing.

My taxes will increase next year. I get nothing from it. Why should the government take more money from me and give it to someone else? Don't I get an opinion on this?

Greater Good? I don't think so. There is no incentive for me to do well; but there's every incentive, with endorsement by the Democratic Leadership, to take everything I can from my betters. All I have have to do is stay home, eat twinkies and vote the way 'they' tell me to. I can trot out on CNN every once in a while and talk about my 'horrors', PTSD, disabilities, sacrafices, etc.; in exchange for another government scooby snack.

Are the Republicans any better? Yes they are. I have more money to use the way I want; and I can travel or work anywhere I want with that money. That comes from 35 years of blue-collar and white-collar labor under both political parties.

Republicans are politicians and just as corrupt; but they only have one hand in my pocket vice both of them. It is my observation they are much easier to influence in my favor.

[Overland]

He also asserts that the massive spending bailouts were not necessary because the economy would have self repaired.

Again, he offers nothing to support that assertion, he just states it as fact and moves on to say that the only reason for the bailouts is for President Obama to consolidate power.

I'm not sure what kind of support you want him to include. A review of his disagreements with Keynsian economics? I think it's acceptable for him to assume that his readership is well aware of his stance on substantive issues such as the appropriate role of government in the markets. Expecting him to rehash fairly basic economic arguments each time he produces an opinion piece is unfair, B5R.

His piece from 05 August (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjdiZTliMTdmY2FjZjI2ZmUxNGRjOGM2ZDZjYTM0MDQ=&w=MA==) may be more to your liking (as it was to mine):

Besides the strange ways in which we addicts justify our borrowing habit vis-à-vis China, such huge sums have also warped politics at home. Republicans have not balanced a budget since the latter days of the Eisenhower presidency. We are supposed to nod and smile when they talk about financial responsibility, like the crowds at the naked emperor’s procession. Nixon, Reagan, and the two Bushes all employed varying exegeses to justify red ink — Keynes, supply side, tapering deficits, a balanced budget by 2010, etc. Clinton, in contrast, was the last president to actually balance a budget — thanks mostly to a Republican Congress.

The recent Republican-Democratic symbiosis about borrowing is bizarre: Democrats in Congress run up debts like teenagers, enabled by the fact that their Republican parents in the White House never call in their credit cards. Republicans, in turn, started calibrating debts and deficits as percentages of GDP, not in real dollars, once hundreds of billions had metamorphosed into tens of trillions.

Liberals privately talked about “gorging the beast,” hoping that their out-of-control spending would force higher taxes, and with them a long-awaited redistribution of income and government-mandated equality of result. Conservatives have talked of “starving the beast,” by voting in tax cuts that would dry up government revenues and therefore force an end to huge federal expenditures. In the end, we got only higher taxes and higher spending and higher deficits and more debt. Republicans now say of Obama’s fantasyland deficits, “He’s gone way beyond Bush.” Democrats reply, “But Bush did it first.”

[Bulwar]

I think you might find that historically, POTUS entering a tour bring a wave of public support with them -- enhancing their abilities to push the legislation you refer to. This no matter their being Dems or Reps.

As to without public review, well -- everything is out there, but if the public is too interested in the death of a DJ or washed-up pop singer....

You are correct on both counts. I myself was aware and did what little I could to voice my displeasure. The fact remains that the programs in question were rammed down the countries throat with little to no time to organize opposition. To an extent this is because some supposed 'conservative' Democrats and moderate Republicans went with the flow. The only reason the entire agenda hasn't already been passed is because those same politicians finally realized they would be voted out if they didn't offer at least a token resistance.

Why is it so damn hard to get a politician that says what he means and means what he says? Kind of makes a representative republic hard to operate when we allow our representatives to get away with this crap.

Outside of the GWOT I wasn't a fan of GW's spending either. I just wasn't a member of this board and therefore didn't express my displeasure here where ya'll could see it

[Parajuevos]

Republicans are politicians and just as corrupt; but they only have one hand in my pocket vice both of them. It is my observation they are much easier to influence in my favor.

I agree 100% with your entire statement but the above quote sums it up very well.

Furthermore, I am very uncomfortable with what I have been reading about and listening to in regards to the current President.

His socialistic ideas of redistributing the wealth, ala higher taxes on the wealthy disturb me. The wealthy are the people who already pay the bulk of the taxes and who employ most of the rest of us. Why would we want to burden them further? Have they not paid their fair share and gained their wealth by risk and sacrifice? What are the masses going to do when these people finally say that they have had enough and either fold up their tent, kicking out their employees or move off shore? Doesn't the current administration think that higher taxes on the weathy, who produce the commodities that we enjoy and employ most of the rest of us may result in higher prices at the retail counter?

As for health care? If socialized medicine is so great, why, then, do so many Canadians, who can afford to do so, come here, to the U.S. when they have a major health problem that necessitates immediate attention?

These points and questions coupled with some of the appointments that this President is making, such as his Green Czar, Van Jones, who is an admitted Communist, and Mark Lloyd, the new head of the FCC, who wants to impose a fee on conservative talk radio stations, that is equal to their annual budgets, in order to finance public radio, with the intent of taking away the freedom of speech of those who want to get their information from sources other than the mainstream media, a propaganda instrument that is quite obviously in the administrations pocket, is disturbing.

The rug of freedom is being pulled right out from under the feet of the American people and most of our fellow citizens are too afraid to acknowledge it for fear of being called racists, Nazis' and mobsters but who can blame them? Just look how those who attend the town hall meetings and voice protests against the agenda being put forth are portrayed by the left and some of the Democratic politicians, who are outraged that some of us finally have the audacity to talk back to them.

[Forgetthisname]

His socialistic ideas of redistributing the wealth, ala higher taxes on the wealthy disturb me. The wealthy are the people who already pay the bulk of the taxes and who employ most of the rest of us. Why would we want to burden them further? Have they not paid their fair share and gained their wealth by risk and sacrifice? What are the masses going to do when these people finally say that they have had enough and either fold up their tent, kicking out their employees or move off shore? Doesn't the current administration think that higher taxes on the weathy, who produce the commodities that we enjoy and employ most of the rest of us may result in higher prices at the retail counter?

At the moment its still not quite bad enough for them to do so. The wealthy can score other citizenships fairly easily ($535,000 will land you a condo in St. Kits and a passport), but America's laws still hold you taxable for any income over, what is it now, $70k?. Only way to unload that burden is to give up your citizenship, and thats a really tough thing to do emotionally, even for the wealthy. At some point though, you're right, things will reach that level where its just not worth staying anymore. Then we're all well and truely fucked.

[Bulwar]

At the moment its still not quite bad enough for them to do so. The wealthy can score other citizenships fairly easily ($535,000 will land you a condo in St. Kits and a passport), but America's laws still hold you taxable for any income over, what is it now, $70k?. Only way to unload that burden is to give up your citizenship, and thats a really tough thing to do emotionally, even for the wealthy. At some point though, you're right, things will reach that level where its just not worth staying anymore. Then we're all well and truely fucked.

What sucks about this is I'm at the level where my taxes are going to skyrocket, but not at the level where I can say "Screw it, I'm headed for an island paradise."
Even worse, my boss is. Anyone want to bet that he chucks it all? Already moved to FL to avoid impossible state taxes. How much will it take before he closes up shop and moves a few more miles offshore?

[Greenhat]

At the moment its still not quite bad enough for them to do so. The wealthy can score other citizenships fairly easily ($535,000 will land you a condo in St. Kits and a passport), but America's laws still hold you taxable for any income over, what is it now, $70k?. Only way to unload that burden is to give up your citizenship, and thats a really tough thing to do emotionally, even for the wealthy. At some point though, you're right, things will reach that level where its just not worth staying anymore. Then we're all well and truely fucked.

This is not anything new to the current administration. It's been steadily getting worse since Reagan left office. Republican or Democrat doesn't seem to have made much difference in that regard. That applies to the bail-outs, etc.

[Forgetthisname]

This is not anything new to the current administration. It's been steadily getting worse since Reagan left office. Republican or Democrat doesn't seem to have made much difference in that regard. That applies to the bail-outs, etc.

Yeah, I guess this was a POTUS thread. I agree its not specific to him that people are actually researching ways to leave the US.

[Massgrunt]

I agree its not specific to him that people are actually researching ways to leave the US.
Oh Jesus not this bullshit. My message to anyone whose resolve is so weak is to just go the fuck away and enjoy some other, freer, more conservative country.

[Greenhat]

Oh Jesus not this bullshit. My message to anyone whose resolve is so weak is to just go the fuck away and enjoy some other, freer, more conservative country.

You want to rethink that comment?

[sfmedicw9]

Oh Jesus not this bullshit. My message to anyone whose resolve is so weak is to just go the fuck away and enjoy some other, freer, more conservative country.

I dont see the comment as BS

Its a valid point - this isnt some Alec Baldwin im going to take my ball and go home whine whine boo hoo thing

This is people that have wealth that are looking at options that would prevent the Government from stealing it and giving it out to societal flotsam

damn i could name a LOT of countries that have a lot less regulatory burdens and less government thievery of wealth - fuck i used to live in one and that country was called communist back in the day

[Massgrunt]

You want to rethink that comment?

Not really, no. It's directed at people who say "if Candidate XXX is elected then I'm out of here". I heard it from the left about GW, and I've heard it a little bit from the right about President Obama. And my response is always the same, if your attachment to your country is so weak that you can't suffer through four to eight years of a president you don't like, go ahead and leave.

[literategrunt]

Massgrunt,
Perhaps I wasn't concise in my wording. The question I posed wasn't in regards to those who would leave for ideological reasons, aka 'sore losers'. I wouldn't expect to find individuals of that disposition on this forum.The demographic I was looking at consists of those who would consider early retirement or a higher standard of living due to lower tax burdens on a practical level. Will the United States spawn another post-war lost generation, this one taking a myriad of skills (language etc) with them along with their income to a foreign land that doesn't seem quite so foreign due to changes in the United States that occured while they were deployed defending it.

[Forgetthisname]

Not really, no. It's directed at people who say "if Candidate XXX is elected then I'm out of here". I heard it from the left about GW, and I've heard it a little bit from the right about President Obama. And my response is always the same, if your attachment to your country is so weak that you can't suffer through four to eight years of a president you don't like, go ahead and leave.

Ok. I agree with you in being against the melo-dramatic bullshit people spit about how they're going to leave if XXX gets elected. What I said was specifically not that. I'm talking about people of means not wanting to give away their money because some set of politicians wants them to. Their only recourse is to leave, and the politicians are getting to the point that the amount they're trying to steal is so great that it might soon be worth the *significant* outlay to escape it.

I know that NY to FL is hardly the USA to Austria, but here is a pretty good example of how eventually, people will just uproot from their homes and leave. Over and above federal taxes, the tax on the well-to-do in New York, (not even really wealthy, especially by NY standards) has gotten absurd. http://http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/672153.html?imw=Y is an article about B. Thomas Golisano leaving NY because, with recent increases in taxes, it would cost him appx $13,800 per day to live there. He's moving to Florida, no state tax, to avoid that. He even mentions that the only reason he is in NY is because of his family there. So for this billionaire, it looks like 14k/day is what it will take for him to move from his family.

[Greenhat]

Not really, no. It's directed at people who say "if Candidate XXX is elected then I'm out of here". I heard it from the left about GW, and I've heard it a little bit from the right about President Obama. And my response is always the same, if your attachment to your country is so weak that you can't suffer through four to eight years of a president you don't like, go ahead and leave.

You need to be clearer in what you are stating. There are a number of people who post on this board who choose to live in other nations. Individual liberty may be an issue for some of them (it is for me). I haven't had my resolve questioned often. Certainly not by anyone who knows me worth a damn.

[Massgrunt]

I have no idea why you don't live in the states and it's none of my business. You're being awfully quick to assume something is directed at you. I can see how forgetthisname could think that was directed at him since I quoted his post (it was more of an observation in general), but not you. I'm speaking about people who spout off about leaving their country they claim to love because of a single election or candidate they don't like. I think it's a bullshit position for people who claim to love their country. I am less than thrilled by what's going on in America right now... or what went on 9 years ago... or between 1976-1980, etc. I'm not even considering leaving America for some place that will be neither too hot or too cold politically. I can think of a million good reasons to live in Thailand, but personally the political climate at home isn't one of them.