Quote Originally Posted by Dave Severson View Post
Just asking the questions, that's all... Read that article awhile back, some accuracy but still a bit opinionated. I'm in no way looking for the rich to pay everyone else's way, just wondering if the tax plan Romney has is going to be able to generate enough tax revenue, and still promote economic growth??? Just trying to fine something positive in this whole economic fiasco! Seems we get a lot of the "blame game", but no definitive answers from either candidate on what will work!
I don't know if in our current media driven narrative if an honest question can filter through. It's tough enough here. But too many of our fellow citizens won't expend enough mental energy to grasp the scope of what we're dealing with. That's what makes them susceptible to the b.s. line of thought that taxing the rich is the solution. Taxing alone ain't gonna get it done. That's why silly argument points like " Romney wants to kill big bird...." flys. As pointed out earlier, PBS can do fine without government money.............letting them loose on their own shouldn't even be a matter of discussion/contention..................except it's a club to motivate the ignorant. I've been struggling to think of a way to frame the discussion in a way that might break through. The best I can come up with is a combination of ideas/information that float around separately an might work if joined in an exercise.

We borrow 40% of every dollar the government spends. That means the revenue intake covers 60%. Several analyses have calculated that "if" POTUS ever actually proposed the "Buffett Rule" against the "rich" (rather than just blathering in speeches) that that tax increase would fund the government for 6 days (that of course assumes the "rich" wouldn't change their behavior to legally minimize the new tax burden...............a behavior that, historically has always happened). So, our existing 60% covers 219 days of operation, the new tax adds 6 days for a total of 225 days. Since we have 365 days in most years, that leaves 140 unfunded days.............almost 5 months! As an aside, if we apply Obama logic to this formulation as he falsely applies to Romney's tax plan, the middle class is in deeeeeeppp doo doo! There's not enough taxing power on this continent to pull in those 140 days of operating cost. We MUST reduce spending. But anyone who proposes any cuts they are demonized mercilessly..................which leads to vagueness in an election process. The way the citizens let the media and some politicians play those games kills the opportunity for serious discussion. Again, I'll point out the Big Bird discussion here...............the loyal leftists, even when it's pointed out how little impact federal budget money has on PBS, STILL use it as a negative........................they are not serious about budget control on even the littlest item, much less move on to larger items.

Just a brief comment on the business starters discussion that sort of misses the point of business birthing. Ray Kroc may have failed at some business at some time, I don't recall one way or the other, but he was a shake machine salesman when he met the McDonald brothers. He probably borrowed a lot of that pile of money he gave them for access to their business model, plus he had ideas of his own to improve on what they developed. There was no guarantee he would succeed...........he was gutsy enough to take a risk with the hope it would prove successful. He probably had great confidence in himself, but he probably had moments of doubts when things didn't always work out. Dave Thomas was born into orphanhood by an unwed mother who gave him up. He worked himself up from the bottom, made a very good income, and save some modest wealth as he worked himself up in the Kentucky Fried Chicken enterprise. That's what gave him the experience, a small amount of seed capital, and the vision to start Wendy's. The courage to take the risk was from his heart. And that's the key commonality to almost all small business entrepreneurs..................willingness to take a risk where there is no guarantee to start a business. That's why so few step up, it's a rare trait in the human psyche, maybe less than 5% of people have that. That doesn't make them "better" than the other folks, but it does make them "special" in the context of business building. If an example helps, Michael Jordan possesses that "better" thing when it comes to basketball skill. Anyone of us can go out there and shoot some hoops, but he elevates it to art. He was highly rewarded appropriately for that "specialness" because people chose to pay to see him exibit his skills. Same thing for the entrepreneur, except there's more of a good or service involved rather than entertainment. So, how does that long blah blah relate to Dave's comment? POTUS has demonstrated that he doesn't get that whole idea at all. Yeah, the koolaid drinkers will argue, but I'm talking about actions, not words. The closest he comes is shoveling money to cronies who help him with campaign contributions. And before any lefty tries to feign angst or argue, read the article about the principles of Solyndra (Geo. Kaiser et al) in yesterday's WSJ about how they are now trying to transfer Solyndra losses to other of their profitable companies so they can REDUCE their tax payments. I know, some of you are wondering how that can be...........POTUS tells us how his rich buddies WANT to pay more in taxes...................yeah, right. Back to the point......at least Romney has an understanding of the entrepreneur, has financed many of them who he believed had a viable business plan. The mischaracterization of his business above is incomplete. Can he......will he......be able to create an environment in this economy that reassures entrepreneurs to create/expand their businesses rather than pull in their horns as they do under the current administration? There ain't no guarantees, but from that one point of view, he a better risk. This is the point where some do the "lesser of two evils...." thing. Well, every decision we make is a "lesser of two evils...." choice, it's just that we don't always couch it in negative terms.