By joe_mamma

February 18, 2010 3:11 PM | Link to this

A couple of points 1)What is going to stop the executive from accepting some other form of compensation to avoid the tax such as stock options or a preferred stock that has a high yield dividend? 2) What if the company and executives agree to defer the payment until the tax provision expires? 3) I would not be surprised if the banks sat on the funds set aside for small business loans because they do not want to take the risk of loaning money to a high risk small business in a bad economy. 4) Generally small businesses do not go get loans to hire new people to make payroll. They only hire people if they have a proven revenue stream to cover the cost.

By what??

February 18, 2010 3:58 PM | Link to this

Sherod Brown demonstates,time and again, that he has little understanding, nor cares how the private sector works. The SBA has been bleeding money from small business defaults. Would a tax on bank bonuses go to the federal government so that they would administer and loan the money to small business? I can think of at least one local reverend that would be the first in line… Brown’s proposal is confiscatory regardless of where the money goes.The taxpayer and small business might be better served if he spent more time SOLVING governmental problems than worrying about wealth transfer schemes and getting even. The Post Office runs a seven billion dollar deficit. Why not start there and “find” the money from within the government?

By Mike W

February 18, 2010 9:19 PM | Link to this

The only way Brown will ever deserve or earn any consideration is if he starts being honest and forgets party line crap. Lets hear how he thinks the Post Office, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonus payments are justified with tax payer money. You can not worry about the private sector and let your own house crumble. The light at the end of the tunnel this country sees is total collapse, we need to be going the other direction. Europe has been trying to tax there way out and it doesn’t work.

By voter

February 19, 2010 1:50 PM | Link to this

If you want to know what Brown thinks about these things, why don’t you contact him? I have written Brown, Voinovich, and Boehner several times. I usually get a response from Brown and Voinovich. Boehner, not so much. Of course, Boehner doesn’t really care about his constituents.

By CorrectofCourse

February 19, 2010 4:26 PM | Link to this

Sherrod Brown is a fool and we need to recall him or find someway to throw him out of office. What happens in the years when they don’t make their bonuses? Do they get money from the Government then? The government made the mistakes that lead to the need to bail them out in the first place. Most of their compensation plans are heavily weighted to bonuses versus salaries that’s why they work like they do and they, as anyone who gets a bonus of any size knows, plenty in taxes when they get the bonus.

By CorrectofCourse

February 19, 2010 4:27 PM | Link to this

Sherrod Brown is a fool and we need to recall him or find someway to throw him out of office. What happens in the years when they don’t make their bonuses? Do they get money from the Government then? The government made the mistakes that lead to the need to bail them out in the first place. Most of their compensation plans are heavily weighted to bonuses versus salaries that’s why they work like they do and they, as anyone who gets a bonus of any size knows,pay plenty in taxes when they get the bonus.

By Libertarian

February 20, 2010 10:10 AM | Link to this

Socialism, Central Banking, and the Welfare State all exist to serve each other. You cannot have those three entities and have a Republic which respects Individual Liberty, Property Rights, and Limited Government. It is impossible for these two forms of government to exist simultaneously. What good is financial security if you are a slave? A government extravagant enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to extract everything you have. It is impossible for me to understand America’s infatuation with the Welfare State. Where did these ideas come from? I almost forgot – seventy years of Socialist policies which began with Franklin Roosevelt, have been celebrated since their inception, not only by those who received welfare from the State, but also from the media and public education… which proclaimed this man and his Socialism a god. Before we blame the Free Market for all of our economic woes, perhaps we should first attempt to establish that a Free Market exists.

By Libertarian Pt Deux

February 20, 2010 10:13 AM | Link to this

It could be argued that the erosion to sound monetary policy, in many ways, led to the erosion of individual morality. The desire to raise our children with principles should always supersede the type of car that we drive, the house we live in, or the neighborhood we live in. Our principles that we instill – should always supersede the value we place on money. Socialism and the Welfare State will always follow in the footsteps of Economic Freedom and Prosperity. If you begin your society with Socialism and a Welfare State then Prosperity would never be achieved. Economic Freedom always leads to Prosperity, and it is after Prosperity is achieved, that politicians begin the propaganda of class envy, Democracy, and the Redistribution of Wealth. America has enjoyed unprecedented levels of prosperity in the last seventy years. Our economic health, artificially inflated by central banking, grew much faster than it should. By removing the U.S. Dollar from a gold standard, and thereby removing reasonable restrictions to the creation of credit, national and personal wealth was grossly inflated. This led to the creation of subsidies, a welfare state, a tyrannical Federal Government, and a serious decline to individual and national morality. Whether or not this will absolve the Union in 2010 remains to be seen.

By Libertarian Part Tres

February 20, 2010 10:18 AM | Link to this

The Growing American Resentment—Millions of Americans are still hung up on this old idea of individual liberty, property rights, and limited government. I realized just how many there were when Ron Paul received over 1 million votes in the Republican primary. This surprised and impressed me. Will mankind look to themselves for the maintenance of their well being – or will we look to Kings, Monarchs, Dictators, Oppressors and Tyrants? How can our government punish murder when it endorses the killing of our innocent? How can our government punish theft when it robs us of our wealth and redistributes it to both rich and poor? How can our government ask us to honor its will when it taxes our personal property – thus giving it a higher claim to our land and homes than we have?

By Libertarian Part Quatre

February 20, 2010 10:24 AM | Link to this

The Original Constitution—When the Founding Fathers created the Constitution it was different than it is today. Like George Washington suggested: “In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable.”

By Libertarian Part Cing

February 20, 2010 10:27 AM | Link to this

To insure that government respected private property rights and thus individual liberty – only those who owned property were allowed to vote. Also, to insure that politics remained local – constituents were only allowed to vote for their respective Congressman and State Legislature. Voters were not allowed to cast a ballot for President or Senate – thus insuring that National Politics remains local. But our politicians were smarter than the Founding Fathers and sought, thinking of their own ideology and greed, to corrupt this system which guaranteed liberty and limited government. Naturally those who pay taxes and possess private property are much more likely to limit the size and scope of government powers and its abuse of liberty. By steering the citizen to focus on one man for the solution to his woes (President), we’ve deduced our Republic to a group of irresponsible adults seeking a King or Dictator to solve all of life’s problems. Rather than looking to ourselves and the market for the answer to life’s struggles – we’d rather direct our liberty and allegiance to a hollow entity – which can only exist by removing the power we retain over our own lives.

By Libertarian Part Six

February 20, 2010 10:32 AM | Link to this

Civil rights vs private property rights—One of the unforeseen consequences of the civil rights movement was unhinged meddling in our places of business by Local and Federal Government. Civil rights legislation trumps property rights they say. If you own your own business the government has a right to regulate that business. If you work hard, save your money, purchase a building for entrepreneurship, and work hard to insure its success – the government steps in to instruct you how to hire, how to fire, how to manage, how to cook, how to clean, and how to insure a safe work environment. Civil rights legislation was just the beginning of the government’s involvement in the management of our personal property. Such legislation set the precedent that our government has a higher level of authority in our places of business than we (the owners) have. Modern versions of this legislation can be seen in our tobacco smoke bans, in our cooking oil bans, and our handicap friendly requirements. How can our government ask us to be color blind when our legislation isn’t? If an alien from outer space came to earth and toured our government’s legislation, one thing would be obvious. The government believes that blacks are inferior in mental ability and ambition. How else can you explain the Liberals never ending obsession with race determined rights? In our country all races seem to struggle and then thrive – with the exception of blacks. Liberals in our country use the taxation of the masses to buy the votes of the African American. The Welfare State, the Great Society, the Community Reinvestment act…. what have these programs given the black community? These programs have destroyed their nuclear families, personal ambition, and individual pride. What can you say of a government that legislates a lower set of standards for an individual based upon the color of their skin? I do not blame the black community… I blame the white dominated government who’ve destroyed their ambitions in the name of charity.

By Libertarian Part Sept

February 20, 2010 10:35 AM | Link to this

Liberals and the way of things—Liberals very much like to say that conservatives like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh divide Americans. They never seem to think that their policies and their platform divides anybody. Their platform is simply the way of things, and should be accepted as the status quo (since they control the media it’s easy for them to create this impression). Liberals insist that those who disagree with them are the dividers – never themselves, they never divide anybody. Those who desire private education for their children – they are the dividers. Those who desire coal burning plants and gas guzzlers – they are the dividers. Those who desire limited government – they are the dividers. And yet in the personal lives of the well known liberal politician – we see that their children attend white private schools. We see that wind and solar technology is wonderful – so long as it’s not where they can see it. We see that hybrids are proclaimed, and yet they refuse to purchase them. We see that government forced charity is desired – but never private individual charity, never their money. If we have to make an exception for gay marriage (not that government should be in the business of issuing marriage licenses – they should be out of that business) then what about the growing number of Muslims in America? What about their equal treatment under the law? If the Muslim pays taxes, just like the rest of us, then who are we to deny him his equal rights to pursue a non-traditional lifestyle? Who are we to discriminate? If it’s fair for the gay’s non-traditional lifestyle to achieve legitimacy by obtaining a state endorsed marriage, then why shouldn’t the state equally endorse the Muslim or Mormon who desires more than one wife? Or perhaps, as is poplar in his religion, he should marry a young girl of 8 or 9 years of age. Who are we to discriminate? What’s fair for one non-traditional lifestyle is fair for another. If we’re going to break down thousands of years of bigotry and discrimination – why stop at just gay marriage? By what right do we command ourselves with the legislative authority to discriminate? (sarcasm intended)

By Libertarin Part Huit

February 20, 2010 10:42 AM | Link to this

Backs Against the Wall—Never in the history of this nation have those who relish individual liberty felt so lost. It seems at every turn natural rights are being destroyed in the name of security or financial necessity. But who’s security? The security of a government, so obese, that the people now exist to serve it? Or the financial necessity of those who, rich or poor, have chosen a path of irresponsibility? Therefore our rights are chipped away, bit by bit, until the last remaining remnant surrenders or seeks to restore those lost rights. The straw that breaks the camels back will be further economic decline. For never on earth have such a spoiled and rotten group of hypocrites existed - as they do here in America - the land of the free. We have reached a situation in America, with our citizens (of all walks of life) so spoiled, that the word “NO” should not be mentioned by our politicians or government. Severe economic decline will cause the government to nationalize more banking and industry. Property rights are being destroyed at all levels: city, state, and federal – and all in the name of financial necessity. The GOP, as our representatives for conservatism, never questions the government’s authority to mandate our retirement fund (social security). The GOP never seriously questions our legislation endorsing abortion. The GOP never seems to think minding our own business, is a better foreign policy solution, than regulating the global economy in the name of Democracy and Corporate Ambition. The GOP and the Liberals are now two sides of the same coin. That any conservative votes Republican shows their allegiance to a political party often greatly outweighs their allegiance to individual liberty and property rights. When I watch the news, it’s obvious to anyone who can listen, that nearly all commentators are sold out to the two mainstream parties. Both parties, though equally loud in their empty rhetoric, exist to slowly push the American psyche into Socialism and thus the enslavement of his individual liberty.

By Libertarian Part Neuf

February 20, 2010 10:49 AM | Link to this

Secession from the Union… again? When did America develop this blood oath to the Union? Our Founding Fathers and even Abraham Lincoln made it plain that it’s the citizens job to insure that the government protects his rights – not violates them. The Confederacy was wrong on slavery but right on states rights. The Civil War cemented the iron fist of the Northeast. The northeastern states declared that they would run the economy for both the North and the South. They killed 650,000 Americans to insure, that the power to control the economy, remained in their hands. Over the decades Americans have been brainwashed into believing that the Federal Government’s authority is not to be questioned. Should we be found guilty of treason for suggesting that our Federal Government has too much authority and has therefore violated its pact with America? Should we be bound by mob rule (Democracy) in the face of dwindling individual liberty, erosion of private property rights, and the enforcement of an unsound monetary system? As the Declaration of Independence suggests - do men not possess the natural rights to insure their own liberty? By what moral righteousness does our Federal Government command the authority over our lives and liberty? Is the Federal Government the creator of our rights? Or is it the collection of upstanding men, who form a government, that possess the individual rights to insure their liberty and thus the collective right to protect such liberty as a group? On the causes of the French Revolution: “Louis XVI ascended to the throne amidst a financial crisis; the nation was nearing bankruptcy and outlays outpaced income. This was because of France’s involvement in the Seven Years War and its participation in the American Revolution. The inefficient and antiquated financial system was unable to manage the national debt, something which was both caused and exacerbated by the burden of a grossly inequitable system of taxation. Another cause was the continued conspicuous consumption of the noble class, especially the court of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette at Versailles, despite the financial burden on the populace.” Central banking was created to facilitate the wealth of a nation into the hands of a few men. Central banking exists to facilitate Socialism, the Welfare State, Federal and State subsidies, the destruction of property rights, and the eventual destruction of individual liberty as well as morality. In our modern America, the government exists to control our lives, not to protect our liberty so that we may chase life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But in a world where those who are born and grow up in bondage are allowed to vote – it begs the question – how could such a people be expected to embrace individual liberty, economic freedom, and limited government… while their stomachs are still full? And how can those who desire such distant fantasies regain control of such a government?

By Libertarian Part Dix

February 20, 2010 10:53 AM | Link to this

The Future of the Union—Liberty and property rights are more important than financial necessity. What good is a full stomach, plasma television, or a new car if you’re a slave to central bankers and the corporate whores which accompany them? What good is the right to vote, when there’s only one party running? Why would those who create the wealth of a nation, the life-line of the government, continue to create wealth when the Welfare State and Corporate Greed has an equal vote for the pillaging of their purse? I don’t know what the future of America will be. But I do know that to correct the wrongs of a society so out of step with Natural Rights and Natural Law, will require more blood than we’re willing to part with. For the global corporate ambitions of the few will not easily be thwarted by a handful of unprepared revolutionaries. Our nation has gone so far from it’s foundations of life, liberty and individual responsibility, that it cannot be corrected by voting for the latest round of politicians… which brings us to secession and civil war. If civil unrest occurs it will have to be introduced by State Legislatures. Armed groups of roaming bandits would accomplish little more than the removal of more rights from the general population. You may think that what I’m suggesting here is out of touch with reality in America. I can assure you that it is not. Our media and Washington D.C. are out of touch with the rising resentment growing in the heartland. And if that resentment finds a foothold with individual State Legislatures things will get interesting. The average citizen is clueless of just how fast their life can change. Or of just how fast everything they believe and take for granted – can be destroyed in the blinking of an eye. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Is a nation nothing more than lines on a map? Or is a nation a group of individuals with similar aspirations and ideology? I would like to leave you with two quotes. Dr. Alexander Tytler, a Scot professor, wrote a scholarly tome called “The Athenian Republic” which was published shortly before the thirteen American colonies gained independence from Britain. “The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again into bondage.” And from the Vermont Guardian: “Support for secession grows among Vermonters. A recent statewide survey conducted by the Center for Rural Studies at the University of Vermont found that the percentage of eligible voters who favor Vermont seceding from the Union States and becoming an independent republic, as it once was between 1777 and 1791, increased from 8 percent in 2006 to 14 percent in 2007.”

By finally heard from Senator Brown

February 23, 2010 2:03 PM | Link to this

I contacted Senator Brown last week, and I got a form letter reply today. In my letter to Sherrod, I suggested that members of congress be subject to massive income taxes on income earned beyond their taxpayer-paid salaries and pensions. He didn’t respond to my suggestions, just something along the lines that Wall Street has to pay for being greedy.