Conservative Political and Social Issues
taking time away from watching Otomen on the net to write that?
It was my oldest sons memory work. God wrote it not I.
okay, but you titled it....lol..
True. Thank God you aren't that tough on the Democrats. lol. I do hope and pray that all have a blessed Thanksgiving. And please know that these are the times we need to thank God that we have enough to eat as many in this world do not. And if you feel the calling to give to a food bank or serve the homeless please do. This is a great nation because God blessed us with many resources and great people.
The Senate healthcare bill has numerous flaws – but you needn’t know the details to know that it erodes freedom, restricts your ability to care for your family according to your wishes, costs trillions of dollars, increases taxes, increases premiums and is so massive that it is impossible to comprehend fully. In fact, the 2074 page behemoth in the Senate is an interesting study in word choices that tell you all you need to know about the bill. See below for a list of select words – and I am not the only one to do such a review (I noticed, e.g., Lee DeCovnick over at American Thinker from yesterday here). The word “shall” appears 3607 times, but “freedom” only twice. The word “penalty” and its various forms 163 times, but “liberty” doesn’t appear at all. The word “require” and its forms 1025 times, but the “Constitution” is absent both literally and figuratively. The word tax and its forms appears 183 times, fee 234 times, and “Internal Revenue” 104 times. Other words like apply, rule, culture, diverse, enforce, provide, authority - all words that appear repeatedly, while a word like “own” appears only 11 times. See the full list below. It is quite telling.Words in the Senate healthcare bill:(including the various forms of each, e.g. plural)Pages = 2074Shall or Shall Not = 3607Provide = 1910May or May Not = 1047Secretary = 2500Penalty = 163Sanction = 8Oversight = 39Study = 150Report = 789Require = 1025Authority = 115Culture = 40Allow = 162Cost = 562Fund = 563Fee = 234Tax = 183“Internal Revenue…” = 104Enforce = 47Government = 117Qualify = 482Apply = 1741Monitor = 55Rule = 310Certify = 177Law = 283Authorize = 408Reasonable = 61Compare to:Freedom = 2Free = 15Liberty = 0Choice = 40Choose = 4Own = 11Constitution = 0Federalism = 0
Chris, this is an entirely ridiculous comment. I think you should go look at other bills and see how many time your favorite words appear. We don't pass laws about liberty or federalism.
Bruce it is just an observation. Are you saying words don't matter? I think they do matter and they help show a patern in the liberal idealogy and the bills they are pushing.
Bruce and everyone feel free to post what you want on here. Have clean debate if you can. And be thankful we can write like this. One more thing remember the good old days, we just went through them.
First Retail Clinic Opens in DC 2 Miles from Capitolhttp://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/11/first-retail-clinic-opens-in-dc-1-mile.htmlMinuteClinic, the pioneer and largest provider of retail-based health care in the United States, has opened its first retail health care center in Washington, D.C. inside a CVS/pharmacy store on Bladensburg Road. The clinic is open seven days a week and will serve patients in Northeast neighborhoods, including Trinidad, Carver Langston, Kingman Park, Atlas District, Ivy City and the Gallaudet University campus."Through this conveniently located store-based clinic, we are expanding access to high-quality, affordable care for common family illnesses in the Northeast neighborhoods of the District of Columbia," said Andrew Sussman, M.D., MinuteClinic president. "We are committed to making our innovative model, which includes a series of prevention and wellness services, part of the District's extensive efforts to broaden access to quality medical care for its citizens."The MinuteClinic health care center in Northeast is open Monday - Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., Saturday from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Sunday from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Examinations typically take 10-15 minutes and no appointment is necessary.Additional MinuteClinic locations are expected to open inside CVS/pharmacy stores in the District of Columbia in 2010. There are 23 MinuteClinic health care centers inside select CVS/pharmacy stores in Northern Virginia and Maryland counties surrounding the District of Columbia.MP: While Congress considers how to bring down health care costs and expand access to medical care through various grandiose government interventions, programs and public options (and they've got 2,000 pages worth of "heatlh care reform" to prove it), the private marketplace is already doing it - lowering costs and expanding access at more than 1,000 retail clinics (with maybe as many as 4,000 by 2015, see chart above). And unlike government-based health care reform, the explosion of affordable, convenient retail health clinics across the country didn't require any tax increases, government spending or funding, or special legislation.Isn't it ironic that within a week of the Senate vote to start debate on health care reform, the first retail clinic opens in Washington, D.C. less than two miles from the U.S. Capitol? Could the senators mabye take a field trip to the clinic to see what market-based health care reform looks like before they plot their takeover of the health care system?
Are you saying the Bush years are the good old days? I thank god we're not under the Bush regime every day. I'm thankful for an intelligent President, even though I don't agree with everything we are doing in the country or the world.I'm thankful for a President that cares about real people and not the corporate elite.
Some of those Peasants that BANK rolled OBAMA starting with that Field worker SOROS! I know he does NOT want or CARE about Influencing this Great One Term President,He might just be sitting back hoping to have his PHOTO taken with his ANNOITED one. Now lets not Forget about all those POOR Peasants In Congress that took time to leave there Mc Donald Jobs to ASSIST in Obamas ANNOITMENT. YES Indeed BRUCE the Peasants did Sacrifice! Those Libs Will show those Corporate Elites a thing or TWO!
Al, its along time till 2012. And with the wack jobs you have running around doing all the talking I'm confident that we'll be all right. Its amazing the amount of phony bullshit you guys let your party feed you and then you want us to apologise when we get hooked. Right now, i gotta go before the Death Board and worry about my Birth Certificate, and i'm secretly a Muslim who trained in Iraq with Al Quadda on WMD's after buying Yellow Cake Uranium.
JOEC You have a Great Thanksgiving and Dont eat that Yellow Cake! One more Thing I dont have a Party I am A CONSERVATIVE and Always put Country First,Always!
Joey - May be a long time until 2012 (by my estimates it's just a couple of years) but 2010 is just around the corner. We'll see dawg, we'll see. It's all speculation, but I love the thought of you idiot libs with your heads in the sand. Just keep whistling past the graveyard dipshits. Polls don't mean anything unless your guy is in the lead, right? I mean, you guys worshipped the polls when Obama was in the lead, or a Dem was projected to win. But now the polls are all lies, yada yada yada. You idiots crack me up. Keep living in your world, because we don't want you in ours, a.k.a. "Reality".
Joey, one other thing idiot -Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.Gobble gobble!
Yes Bruce I am saying the past was better. This regime has made things much worse. Just look at the debt they are raking up. I didn't like it when Bush and the Democrats in Congress did it and now that Obama has gone crazy with the countries credit card I hate 4 times worse. Since that is the same amount Obama has raised our debt. And once these disasters of bills get put into action we will really see the shithole the Democrats made. You liberals where bitching about Bush from the day he took office and you never stopped. Well now it is our turn and Obama and the Democrats have made it easy to prove how much worse the Democrats are then the Republicans. Is the nation better off now the the Democrats run it? If you say yes then you are full of it and if you say it's Bush's fault that doesn't work anymore either.
Once More this is the Greatest NATION in the History of the PLANET bar NONE!I KNOW of NO other NATION that has FOUGHT on FOREIGN Shores to Protect all PEOPLE from Dictators,Tyrants or Emperors and the ONLY land we have EVER ask for was the LAND to BURY OUR Brave MILITARY!Do We and Have we had FAULTS,YES,Do WE Make MISTAKES,YES but at the END of the Day we have always SURVIVED and AS a WHOLE have made this WORLD a BETTER Place. Can we do MORE, YES,and we will ALWAYS have to Sacrifice because there will ALWAYS be People that want to take OUR NATION away from US both outside and inside this Great NATION! Although we have POOR by standards set by Other Nations there POOR would come here in a HEART beat for OUR Freedoms but as anything YOU must EARN FREEDOM EVERYDAY! All out there have a GREAT THANKSGIVING!
@Bruce Fealk: You think Obama is some kind of genius? Have you really listened to him? He stutters and stammers every bit as much as Bush. Just because people tell you he is smart, does not make it true. I'm not saying Bush was a genius, but the man did have a degree from an Ivy League school, just like Obama.
Chris, yes, the country is better off in many ways. I do think President Obama is about to make a disastrous mistake, escalating the war in Afghanistan. It may be his downfall, a really tragic mistake, in the vein of LBJ.As far as the nation's credit card, I do have a concern, but I believe that at this point in history, the government is the only source available to keep the economy from collapsing into a depression even worse than in the 1930's. We need to break up the too big to fail banks and regulate them to keep another collapse from happening. You can tell me to not say it's Bush and the Republicans' fault, but it is. Some Democrats have been complicity, but the economic collapse was born during Bush and President Obama is dealing with its aftermath still, whether you think so or not.I do hope President Obama gets rid of Geithner and Summers. Their ties to Wall Street are too strong and their policies reflect that affinity. We need to worry more about Main Street than Wall Street. I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren, the TARP oversight administrator become Secretary of the Treasury.
Bruce, it is his half-hearted attempt to escalate the war in Afghanistan. And if Obama and the left wing in power would have pulled out of both wars already. Obama has to end these wars with a full hearted attack to win or get out fast before we waste any more lives dithering. I agree with you Bruce he is acting stupidly with these wars. And now with Russian interest for oil through Afghanistan we have a Obama "war for oil". Military moral is at an all time low for good reason. That will get more Americans killed. He spends more time with SEIU then his generals fighting a war that more Americans are dieing in in greater numbers. While Obama and the Democrats are lieing about Americans dieing in the streets without health care. There is the truth and proof that there are Americans dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan in growing numbers. The left need to stop playing politics with every issue they are trying to push through. What help have they been giving to the unemployed? $25 a week is what they got. And a break on COBRA. The only jobs being created are SEIU govt jobs.
Bruce said,"I do hope President Obama gets rid of Geithner and Summers. Their ties to Wall Street are too strong and their policies reflect that affinity. We need to worry more about Main Street than Wall Street." I agree with you on this Bruce. I think Obama needs to get new veters or we need to start looking for a new president soon. I think they are being veted and these radicals are exactly what Obama and his handlers want. The left is getting pissed about Obama not pulling out of the wars like he made it sound to them with his LIES.
Bruce After you Blames BUSH for Economy collapes and that just SHOCKED me that you did BUT you kind of forgot those LAST tw0 years when that other party had CONTROL of the Congress and COULD DO what they wanted Just like NOW but they now have the ANNOITED one. Along with Bush heres some other NAMES you Forgot. Dood, Frank, Reid and Pelosi,and a Program the The LIBS ran Really Well Fanny Mae/Freddie Max! There is ENOUGH blame to GO around and thats the TRUTH however,what is NEEDED is the Economy to get JUMP started and this Administration has GOT its head up its arz. Spending Tax Payers Money to get out of DEBT is almost Criminal! You dont have to be Econemist to KNOW SPENDING to get out of DEBT aint the ANSWER! Now your going after the BANKERS now,every week another piece of the Private Sector gets the wrecking Ball from you. The way Government runs Post Office, Social Security, Medicare,and Freddy Max there track RECORD is BETTER WHY! I do agree with you and that in itself is SCARY but its time to get out Of Afganistan and Iraq if for NO other REASON we have NO leader to make DECSISIONs with OUR military in Harms WAY! Heres one Bruce How would you feel with Frank as secretary of the Treasury? How does a COUNTRY file for Chapter 11 and my freind that can be a reality with this Administration and in some ways I still thin its their GOAL!
Chris, while i am weary of Obama's lack of urgency concerning Afghanistan, lets not let the reality of this war get away from us. We dithered on it since the inception of the invasion on Iraq and by we i mean all of us, including Bush. The media, the government, both parties and our fellow citizens let it fester with little attention. Iraq was more prominent on our minds. When i look back at the last 7 years of the war all i saw was a impossible mission caused by an embarassing lack of attention by the admin. Militarily i thought the whole strategy of Afghanistan was wrong. While we had a sizable advantage after the intials battles we let it go when all eyes turned to Iraq. Its something we will regret. I think eventually we will be forced to just withdrawl and let it be what it may, just like the russians.
Yeh Joe but Obama ran on a platform that Afghanistan was the good war and he would try and win it. His dithering is just one picture in a disterbing mosaic. He also said he wanted out of Iraq. Obama sways with the wind when it comes to a platform. That is what is undermining confidence. Obama isn't fully commited to winning these wars but he wants to stay in them. If Obamas generals say send 40,000 more troops and Obama doesn't think that is the right course then he needs to get new generals that agree with Obama. Even though none of the media is telling us how many are dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean they aren't dieing. It doesn't look good for his military leadership. He can change it just like Bush did with the serge. It is nice to see how tolorant the left is now that it is Obamas war to fight. Obama is like the horse wisperer with you libs. It's funny how you libs become like brainless zombis when the Democrats speak.
Dude, afghanistan is a good war. It was the only good war started by the last administration. Can we win it now, i am not sure. As far as changing Generals thats what Bush did when Shineski told the admin what was the correct strategy and that turned out to be the wrong thing to do. I don't feel the left is tolerant at all about the wars. They still don't like Iraq and are losing patience with Afghanistan. Funny how timing works. Iraq was a quagmire for 3 years and the right was tolerant of that meandering policy, but take a few months and the right gets on Obama for dithering. The only thing Bush changed was DEF Sec and that turned out to be the correct move. Rumsfeld was a hot mess at that position and we all know it. If not for Gates and Petraues then no turn around. Thats and starting to pay the Sunni's not to kill us. You know i thing your smarter than that last comment. Look at all the dittoheads and the freaks losing their minds over Sarah Palin. You want to talk about brainless people their you go. You have decent legitimate canidates for the 2012 election like Pawlenty and Jindal and yet the rightwing clown car keeps pulling up to the fringe, with Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman and the rest. Its fucking amazing to me how that works. Just like 2000, you have a serious canidate in John McCain (before be became a dotteruing old puppet) and you guys pick the dumb guy. Then comes 2008 and the running mate could have been Mitt Rommney, Mike Huckabee, Lyndsey Graham, Crist anyone, but it gets wasted on the crazy bitch. WTF???
Chris, your lack of understanding of the situation in Afghanistan is stunning. No empire has been able to "win" a war in that country and that list will soon include the United States of America, with all its economic might.I went to a talk recently by Juan Cole and it helped me to see the reality of Afghanistan. www.juancole.com, if you want to find out more.What Juan Cole made clear is that Afghanistan is a deeply tribal country. There is very little loyalty to the central government, which is totally corrupt. Therefore, the United States will never be able to train up a national army because there is no loyalty to the central government, so it is a totally foreign concept to Americans.Al, the Democrats did have control of Congress during the last two years of the Bush regime, however, just barely, and had the Democrats put through anything Bush didn't agree with, Bush would have vetoed it anyway, and they didn't have the votes to override a veto, did they, Al. So to dole out blame to the Democrats for the last two years of the Bush regime is disingenuous at best.President Obama made 3 bad hires so far, in my opinion, Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner. I hope he corrects all three as soon as possible. I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren as Secretary of Treasury. She would bring some real oversight to the economy and the TARP program, etc. The bankers wouldn't like her at all though.Second, we don't have enough troops in our military forces to really send more troops. If President Obama sends 34,000 troops, that will leave us only 16.000 in our entire military, should another situation break out in another part of the world, which one could easily see happening.The tribal nature of Afghanistan also explains why a surge such as the one that helped in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan.As to "dithering" I don't have a problem with our President actually hearing all sides and hopefully making the right decision before committing more of our country's blood and treasure to war. Unfortunately, President Obama, I believe, will regret his decision to send more troops.Third, both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to break this country financially. Neither war has been paid for with a tax increase. Both wars have been financed with borrowed money, something I would think as a fiscal conservative, you'd be very concerned about. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the only wars in U.S. history that were not paid for with a tax increase, and a big part of the reason we're in the financial mess we're in. Bush kept both wars off budget with supplemental budgets and that is a part of the reason the current budget is showing more debt growth than Bush did. At least President Obama has some honesty by putting the wars on the regular budget.
I've studied about Afghanistan and I know a little about it and it's culture. You on the left along with Obama said it was the good war. We can't change the Hatfeild vs MacCoy and we can't win a war in Afghanistan. If we need stability then we are better off democrising the countries around it with diplomacy.
But I'm not a war monger like you on the left.
Chris, how do you figure liberals are war mongers?You ought to know better than the fact that we as the United States can democratize any country. Democracy has to grow from the bottom up and the people have to really want it. It can't be imposed on the people by force.
isn't Obama left wing? isn't he make the wars bigger and deadlier? the left aren't against war, just wars run by Republicans. Afghan is a good war according to the libs. It's going to be a Veitnam war all over again. And Obama is too stupid to know any better. I watched all the liberal anti war protest and in 2009 they all stopped. That shows you it wasn't about the wars or the out of control spending with the libs. Bruce,Steve and Sue say "kiss their ass". I see the family didn't want you around.
Bruce I did not just BLAME the Democrats for the CRISIS were in. I Did and have always BLAMED both Parties! Until those 535 Elite in Washington quit playing the BLAME GAME were SCrewed! 2010 Might help in that MATTER! Economy cannot be FIXED without Private Sector and CITIZENS with JOBS. Tell me WHY SPENDING Trillions at this time is the BEST approach and WHY it is not WORKING. This Administration is NOT stupid and have a Agenda that is not in the best INTEREST of this COUNTRY. Putting Tax Money into the hands of the people who PAY Taxes I believe would have SAVED more JOBS than this Stimulus,and Bailouts which to DATE has done WHAT?
Greg, I happen to agree with out about the war in Afghanistan. It is not the good war. It is an unwinnable war and I agree President Obama, if he increases troops there, will make the worst mistake of his presidency.I think you will see the anti-war movement making a comeback next week when President Obama announces his troop increases. The honeymoon is over once that announcement is made.Al, I disagree, that this particular economic situation can be fixed with tax cuts. Actually, there was a large tax cut as part of the stimulus bill. I've never understood the tax cut theory of growing the economy. If I have a business, the only reason I hire someone is not because the government gave me a tax cut, but I hire someone because I have more business and I need more employees to provide the product or service my company makes. The problem with this near depression, was that people with jobs stopped spending money because even if they did have a job, they thought they could be next. The U.S. savings rate recently has been historically high for that very reason. Tax cuts are not the solution to every problem, even thought Republicans seem to believe that. I do beleive that fear of the Republican backlash caused the administration to allow the tax cut in the stimulus bill to be larger than they wanted it to be and therefore the spending on infrastructure was smaller than they wanted it to be and it's the spending that would have more rapidly grown the economy and put people back to work. The loss of jobs momentum when Bush left office was already horrendous and under President Obama it has slowed tremendously. The next step is to actually start growing the mumber of jobs and adding jobs to the economy and I believe that will come, probably without any Republican help. Instead of grabbing a mop, Republicans just want to make the mess bigger and they keep walking on the nice clean floor with their dirty feet, to complete the metaphor.
I agree with Conressman Obey, we need to impose a war tax surcharge to pay for it, otherwise the cost of the war will take down our economy.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8snIBamo-rs&feature=player_embeddedDo you agree with a tax to pay for the war? As fiscal conservatives, I assume you'd be in favor of a tax to pay for it, right?
You Democrats tax,tax,tax. And you want bigger and bigger government. Maybe the tax is a way to fund obamas personal union army or civil community army. Obama did say that he wanted a civil organization to be better funded and larger then our military. Wouldn't it be great if all the liberals had their wealth take from them only. They never practice what they preach.
Jobs were lost at greater numbers after the stimulus bill. Obama has had a huge increase unemployment. The largest increase in unemployment was under Obama. Now lets enjoy inflation like nothing we have seen since the liberal Carter. You liberals live in your heads not in reality. Just wait till we all start paying for the democrats stimulus bill. And never forget it was the democrats that pushed this stupid agendas through. By the end of Obamas term liberal,progressive and Democrat will all be dirty words. Most Americans think of themselves as conservative while less then 20% think of themselves as liberal idiots.
BRUCE What was the Stimulus suppose to FIX?Where did the Tax Payers Money GO? Did Tax Payers get any of their Tax Dollars Back and if so Where? What percentage of tax Payers money went Directly to Forgeign Countrys? Citizens were told by Administration that Unemployment would NOT go over 8 if Stimulus(CRISIS) Passed WHAT happened? The ONLY way to get Economy moving is to get Citizens SPENDING not Government. Tax Payers getting THEIR money BACK instead of other Countrys makes MORE sense regarding getting the Economy Moving. It doeas have a TRACK record. War TAX, Added Value Tax,Tax and Trade are all on this Administrations Plate and I dunt see these Cures for OUR Economy. Would not Surprize me to see a FLUSH TAX which would make my household a ONE flush a DAY Household.NOT GOOD!
So, in other words, Herb, you want to spend, spend, spend, borrowed money on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? I thought you were a fiscal conservative. You want to continue borrowing money from China to pay for the wars? That makes no sense to me. I thought you would be in favor of paying for the war with our money instead of borrowing money and paying interest to the Chinese.So, how do you think we should pay for the war, Herb?Herb, you do realize that it takes time to turn around a crisis like the one we faced. Unemployment has continued to go up, no doubt. But there was a lot of momentum in that direction and the economy doesn't change on a dime just because a new administration takes over. As far as where the money is going, you may want to visit http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/Pages/home.aspxI guess Herb and Al, you don't want to pay for the wars, so you're in favor of bringing our troops home and focusing on a domestic agenda, right? I don't think so. You guys love war.
Tax Bruce. We need to stop growing gov and start growing the tax payer groups. Take a look at how income tax started and finished.
Bruce it is you Democrats that love war and you want to make sure the war never ends by adding a tax. We add tax but we never tack it away. Reagan took it away and cut costs.
Take it away.
(Nov. 24) -- With President Barack Obama expected to announce his plan for Afghanistan on Dec. 1, the debate about how to pay for the war is heating up.The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, wants 40,000 more troops. Obama's plan would send 34,000 during the next year, U.S. officials told McClatchy Newspapers. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey opposes any increase in the 68,000-member U.S. force in Afghanistan. But now that a surge appears inevitable, he and some other top Democrats are demanding a new tax to cover the expense of the war. Various estimates put the annual cost at $500,000 to $1 million per soldier. "If we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy," the Wisconsin Democrat told ABC News. Obey, who came into office in 1969, said that's what happened during the Vietnam War.If the war is to be fought, "it's only fair that everyone share the burden," said a joint statement from Obey, House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha. Their proposal would impose a 1 percent levy on middle-class taxpayers. Those earning more would be taxed at a higher rate, depending on how much is needed for the war. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin has also talked about a war tax, but only for the wealthy. Do you want a class war like the Democrats want? Is it OK to take from one and give to another?
It's not taking from one to give to another. It's paying according to what you're able to pay. It sounds to me that at least you're willing to pay for the war with a tax, but you don't want those able to pay more to pay according to ability to pay.Herb, do you think we should keep borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? It was a Republican President that started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so why are you saying Democrats are war mongers? Republicans can't have it both ways, cut taxes and borrow money to pay for war and still have any credibility as fiscal conservatives. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are the only wars where the administration that started the wars actually cut taxes at the same time we were are war.You Republicans make no sense. You are pro war, which by the way is not the pro-life position. Wars do kill innocent people, but I guess that's another argument.So, what I gather you are in favor of is to keep borrowing money to pay for the wars and to cut taxes at the same time so that America becomes even more of a debtor nation. How can you complain about the deficit at the same time you want to expand the wars at a cost of $1 million per soldier per year?
Bruce did you know that Japan paid for the first Gulf war? We need to pay for the war and have been. But how are we going to pay for everything else? We need to make cuts in the Fed. But we need to have a strong military to protect what we have. All the other BS is just that. Why is gov't. growing and getting more expensive when it should be cutting expenses? You on the left need to think past the moveon/MSNBC talking points.
I think we need to come home from Afghanistan and Iraq and spend the money domestically. So, you want a bigger military and less for our citizens. How about spending American money on Americans rather than war and military spending. The U.S. spends more on their military than every other country in the world combined. Is that really necessary?We haven't been paying for the war, Chris, unless you count borrowed money with outrageous interest rates as "Paid." When you buy something on your personal credit card, do you consider it "Paid" for or is it paid for when the credit card is paid in full. It's the Democrats that want pay as you go spending. Republicans are the ones that spent like drunken sailors. Democrats are the ones that are proposing paying for the wars. Republicans have not credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility whatsoever.
Bruce would you but your money in a bank or leave it in a greenhouse? Do you think for one minute that if we had a small military we wouldn't be invaided? Everyone want American wealth and we need a strong military to protect it and save lives. If you want to keep what you have we need a strong defence. I know in Bruceland no one steals except for the liberals taking from the "rich". Do we need the gov't. to do anything but protect us and the weakest with life,liberty and property? Do you think the govt wants out of the war on drugs? What about the war on poverty? Do you think that once the govt has a tax structure for war they will stop the wars and the tax? Let me put it this way for you Bruce. Do you think the Republicans will give back the war tax money and stop war? How do you think we pay for war now and have always paid for it? War bonds. Educate your self on war bonds and their role in war. We have made cuts in spendiong so we could afford the wars in the past. Bush grew govt,Congress grew gov't. and now that we have the debtmongers in office they want to raise spending without a clue on how to raise the revenew. Did you know that we game money to the arts? Did you know that we gave $million$ to graffiti and rape music arts? Have you seen the wasteful spending since the Bush years and during the Bush years? What makes you think that we can keep spending like tomorrow wont come? The unions and big business is getting bigger under the Obama admin then ever before. The banks paidoff the Democrats with sweetheart deals and payoff so that they got this bailout. This whole time the Democrats are giving away money in the $trillions$ and giving some scrapes to the poor and middle class. Inflation is coming and the is a big tax. Take a good look at Zimbabwa and you will see our future if we keep doing what the Democrats want. Even China,Japan,Russian and EU think this admin is out of control on spending. The only ones that like it are the dumb libs. And they are a 20% fringe of society. I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving. Count our blessings for living in the richest country in the world. By the way Obama and the Democrats talk you would think we are poor hateful capitalist. I'm sick of the way the Democrats talk about our country as if we are the worst country in the world.
Hey Bruce Do you mean that Dodd,Pelosi,Reid and Frank have Switched Partys.Bruce I guess in Your World these are Fiscal Responsible Liberals. With YOUR Credit Card EXAMPLE have not YOU just Discribed YOU and YOUR Congressional BUDDYs. Have not we BORROWED Trillions with NO for see able way of PAYING the LOANS back. OH I remember NOW are Great Grandchildren will PAY on it! As a WHOLE OUR Generation will not be mistaken for the Greatest Generation and that is a FACT! We as a GROUP are the FIRST to hand OUR Great Nation onto the NEXT in Worse shape than when we GOT it and BRUCE thats a TWO Party Failure! Cutting Military Spending is Probably the Right way to GO with this Administraion and their APPEASEMENT Agenda! Their Motto seems to be if we APOLIGIZE can we JOIN you and just be another Europian Nation. NATO and the U.N. will PROTECT US!
Herb, what do you mean Reagan took taxes away? He added taxes including raising our social security tax. look i'm all for having a believe in something, but atleast know what is in that belief.
Reagan cut taxes and retracted gov.
During the summer of 1981 the central focus of policy debate was on the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, the Reagan tax cuts. The core of this proposal was a version of the Kemp-Roth bill providing a 25 percent across-the-board cut in personal marginal tax rates. By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth. Opponents used static revenue projections to argue that ERTA would be a giveaway to the rich because their tax payments would fall. The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out, similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers. Given the current interest in tax reform and tax relief, a review of the effects of the Reagan tax cuts on taxpayer behavior and tax burden provides useful information. During the 1980s ERTA had reduced personal tax rates by about 25 percent, while the Tax Reform Act of 1986 chopped them yet again. Tax Rates and Tax Revenues High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion. A reduction in high marginal tax rates would boost long term economic growth, and reduce the attractiveness of tax shelters and other forms of tax avoidance. The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth." Unfortunately, the Council could not bring itself to acknowledge the counterproductive effects high marginal tax rates can have upon taxpayer behavior and tax avoidance activities. Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period. Click here to see Figure 1. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.
Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income. The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research, the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases. Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic supply side Reagan Administration revenue projections caused large budget deficits during the 1980s is false. Nonetheless, this false allegation is often used against current tax reform proposals. The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases, and were actually quite close to the CBO revenue projections. Even the Democrat-controlled CBO projected that deficits would fall after the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. Conclusion The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is di sproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.
And now were back to Reagan! Same question Now as Then "Were you better off under Reagan or ARE you better off NOW" my bet is your going to say your better off NOW but what was that UNEMPLOYMENT number THEN?
August 2001 -- US Presidents are commonly thought to influence the economy only during, or shortly after, their actual terms in office. Not true. Entitlement programs instituted by FDR and LBJ still profoundly affect our economy today. And Ronald Reagan's historic tax cuts of 1981 are still largely in effect and are still pumping huge amounts of additional money into the economy. However, Bill Clinton and Al Gore got most of the credit during their administration for the continuing economic boom unleashed by the Reagan tax cuts. That undeserved credit may have gotten Clinton re-elected and saved him from being removed from office. It almost got Gore elected too.When Reagan took office in 1981, the US economy was in shambles. We have difficulty remembering how bad the economy was under Carter, but it was described in terms of the "misery index," and the word "stagflation" was coined to refer to the double-whammy of economic stagnation combined with runaway inflation. The automotive industry was on the verge of collapse under the pressure from Japanese competition and an oil crisis. The American way of life itself seemed to be in serious jeapordy. It wasn't the Great Depression, but it was as close as we've come to it since.The top tax rate was 70% when Reagan took office. He got it cut in half to 35%. At the same time, he eliminated many tax shelters that the rich routinely relied on to avoid paying taxes altogether, forcing them to invest in the free market and actually pay taxes. Shortly after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy took off for an unprecedented period of peacetime growth. The misery index plummeted as unemployment fell, inflation slowed, and interest rates dropped, leading to a seven-year boom that the liberal media cynically dubbed "the decade of greed."Eight years later George Bush swept into office on Reagan's coattails and a pledge of "no new taxes." Although he tried to keep his pledge, Bush ultimately succumbed to unrelenting pressure by the Democratically controlled Congress to increase taxes. Not surprisingly, the economy went into a mild recession, though nothing like the recession of a decade earlier. Unemployment was well below what it had been under Carter, and inflation was completely under control. Nevertheless, the liberal media shamelessly dubbed it the "worst economic period of the last fifty years."The media hype succeeded at getting their man, Bill Clinton, elected. Although barely reported, the Bush recession had actually ended before Clinton even took office, with a vibrant 3.9% annual growth rate in the last quarter of Bush's administration. In other words, the second phase of the great Reagan economic boom had already begun before Clinton even moved to Washington. But of course that didn't stop the liberal media from giving Clinton credit for it and dubbing it the "decade of prosperity."How can we be sure the economic boom presided over by Clinton was actually due to Reagan? It's simple. Even though Clinton increased tax rates, the top rate after his tax hikes was still less than 40%, down a full 30% from the 70% rate before Reagan's tax cuts. In terms of the money left after taxes, that's a huge jump from (100-70=) 30% to (100-40=) 60% -- a doubling of the amount of money that continues, year after year, to go into the private economy rather than the federal budget. It hardly takes an economist to understand the huge effect on economic growth of doubling after-tax income.
Clinton also got credit for eliminating the federal deficit, of course. It is no coincidence, however, that the deficit didn't start coming down until the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. As for the touted "Reagan deficits," the indisputable fact is that revenues grew tremendously during Reagan's two terms -- but spending by the Democratically controlled Congress grew even faster, at an astronomical rate. And contrary to the liberal media spin, the lion's share of the growth of the federal budget under Reagan was not on defense, but rather on social entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare.Contrary to Democratic demogoguery about "tax cuts for the rich," incidentally, the rich actually paid higher taxes after Reagan's tax cuts. How could that be? Simple. Along with cutting tax rates, Reagan also eliminated many tax shelters and loopholes. Before Reagan, the rich avoided paying taxes by investing in windmills and other boondoggles blessed by the federal government (the "targeted" tax cuts that Al Gore wanted to reinstate). After Reagan, the rich shifted their investments to the free market, greatly stimulating the private economy and causing the information technology boom.There's more to the story, of course, but everything else is really secondary. In fairness, Clinton actually did a few things himself to help the economy, such as opening up free trade and keeping the Federal Reserve Board under competent leadership. On the other hand, if Clinton had not been restrained by the Republicans, who took control of Congress in the middle of his first term, he would have raised taxes even more than he did, and his wife would have nationalized the health care industry.When Clinton was impeached, his party argued that he should be given a pass because he was doing a good job managing the economy. Without the huge economic boost from Reagan's tax cuts, Clinton might well have been removed from office, or might have failed to win re-election. Gore would have suffered a humiliating defeat in the election to succeed him, or might have failed to even win the nomination. But don't hold your breath waiting for the liberal media to start reporting the truth. If America wants the Reagan economic boom to continue, they need to figure out for themselves what caused it in the first place.
Al, thanks for asking? First i want to mention that Herb brought up Reagan first.on to your question. I am better off now. My kids don't have a dad laid off, like i did in the early 80's. Now can we talk unemployment numbers? Reagans high was 10.8 in Nov and Dec of 82. There were ten months of unemployment in the double digits (9/82-6/83)
Herb, who wrote that and what site did you find it at? It would take me all day to find the numbers and prepare a retort to your posting, but i do want to refute some of them. The author can not give credit to Reagan for reducing the top marginal rate and none of the blame for the increased spending. He signed the bills. The same goes for Congress. They can not be denied credit for passing tax cuts without and blamed for spending increases.Next the fact is the author ingores that Reagan signed plenty of Tax increases. 1982 TEFRA (a 1% of GDP raise)1982 Highway Revenue Act1983 Social security reform1984 Deficit Reduction Act (.4% of GDP)1985 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1987 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act These bills combined to increase taxes about 2.6% of the GDPMy source is Bruce Bartlett, conservative writer and former Reagan WH economic advisor.
Herb the second you give a source they will try and knock the source because they can't knock the facts. Then they bend the facts and find some things that were done wrong. But they go flipping nuts when someone is critical of a Democrat or a Marxist like Obama.
All Administrations INCREASE spending. But NONE to this point have Raised OUR DEFICT so much in such a SHORT period of TIME.All their SPENDING ,where are the JOBS? Businesses have NO idea what this Administrations next move will be and will NOT commit to JOBS with this ANTI Private Sector Administration! The First thing this Administration should have done was to get the ECONOMY going but EVERYTHING their doing is to Kill Private Sector and along with it OUR Economy.You do not CREATE JOBS by TAXING and in the end NO matter what its called it will be Taxes and Small Businesses aint going to HIRE under those Conditions!
Herb your point about the spending cuts of the 94 congress is partially correct, but they didn't amount to more than a third of all reductions.Read the column by Bruce Bartlett in Forbes. He's a particular conservative author i like, mostly for his pragmatism. I'll post the crucial part here...."Clinton was instinctively a populist who wanted an activist government. But he was talked into supporting a tax increase in 1993 to reduce deficits and bring down high interest rates. He was opposed by every Republican in Congress. Economists at right-wing think tanks predicted disaster.As we now know, Clinton's tax increase not only didn't result in economic disaster, it was arguably the trigger for a huge economic expansion. The same could be said for Reagan's 1982 tax increase, which was enacted even before the 1981-82 recession had ended. (The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act was signed into law on Sept. 3, 1982, but the recession didn't end until November, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.)http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/03/fiscal-responsibility-party-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
Chris, lol...unsourced material might as well be made up, its unverifable. Also, if your going to post someones work they deserve credit for it.
Google it JoeC. Why the fixation with sources all of the sudden? I think Chris is right you will attack the source or blindly say it was made up. You are a fool.
Eddy, lol....hey don't source stuff. Then we know its made up. If your unwilling to credit the source and have it looked at then you know its bullshit. Fine, feel inferior and scared that you are posting some jagoff from Free republic and know it doesn't hold to scrutiny. Have a pair brother. If the source is legit why all the fear?
Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.