Daniel Oliver has a great article on Forbes wherein he likens the late 1960s today. He goes on to document some of the similarities between those times and today and the outcomes from the monetary policies of the time. All anecdotal to be sure. However, many of us have been saying for the last 10 years that the path the federal government is on will lead us to economic ruin. Well, I don’t think we’re too far away from that day. Keep an eye on commodity prices.
Finally, Nancy has be dethroned. Her tenure will go down in history as the worst of all time. During her reign of terror over the U.S., we have witnessed the greatest decline of our country’s power, wealth and fortitude.
Hopefully, this mark the end of the chickification of our society, and our nation will again grow a backbone.
Okay, and I have read many of the media reports about what the proposed compromise is on the raising tax rates on the American people. However, I don’t see tax cuts. I only see spending increases and pork.
A few points:
1. Keeping tax rates the same as they have been can’t be defined as a tax cut.
2. A one-year, 2% reduction in payroll taxes is not stimulative to the economy.
3. Keeping tax rates the same does not stimulate the economy. It keeps the economy where it is.
4. The federal government has no money other than what it legally steals from us or prints.
I’d say the Republicans are being setup just like they were with Clinton. The lamestream media continues doing the Democrats bidding and the Democrats continue to take advantage of the lack of education among U.S. citizens.
Republicans, note to self, let the calvary come in in January and solve the problem.
Since the political class is so insistent on raising our taxes, I would support the following tax increase:
– 55% of the increase in a politician’s wealth between his first financial filing at the time he was elected and that at his death is taken and used to pay for retirement and health care costs of all the current and retired politicians thereby keeping their costs off the government’s balance sheet and out of operating costs.
Since the politicians see their wealth increase so much during their tenure, why shouldn’t those of us who put them there actually benefit from this?
I was reading Paul Krugman’s column “There Will Be Blood,” and my first thought was just what a fool he is. How could this man win a Nobel Prize in Economics? Or, does the fact he won one tell you all you need to know about what winning the Nobel Prize really means?
Let’s start with his opening premise: because Alan Simpson was appointed co-chairman of Obama’s special commission on deficit reduction, he must be serious. While he studied economics, it apparently didn’t include a course in logical reasoning, but I know logic goes out the window with liberals feeling politically vulnerable.
Substantively, in this column, Mr. Krugman’s partisanship is overflowing the cup. With comments like “Republicans will try to blackmail the president…” and “The fact is one of our two great political parties has made it clear that it has no interest in making America governable…” demonstrate this. Mr. Krugman knows his readers lack logical and deductive reasoning skills and continues with invalid arguments.
Mr. Krugman, might it be that the Republicans don’t believe that the Democrats are pushing the country in the right direction? Mr. Krugman, does your definition of cooperation only include situations in which Republicans cave to the desires of the NY Times editorial staff, the president, Pelosi, Reid and you? Where is the recognition that the Republicans overwhelmingly defeated the Obama agenda in the November elections? I have yet to hear the White House say it heard the people and will change course to conform to their wishes. Instead, we hear that the messaging was wrong.
Many of us did not go to the Ivy League, but we certainly do read and analyze the data. What we know is that socialism doesn’t work. Never has, and never will. It always fails when the majority of the people decide that they can do better taking from the government than working on their own. Further, the structural issues with government employees’ pensions and post-retirement benefits at local, state and federal levels ensure that the middle class will be paying for the excesses of liberal government policies for generations.
We see the states that are bankrupt, and they are run by Krugman and his likes. The supposed intelligent have ignored facts and instead continue down paths that historically have already been traveled and proven fruitless. They learn nothing from these experiences only lament that they didn’t spend enough. Evidence has it that this whole crisis and recession was caused by policies espoused by the big-government Democrats and Republicans. Yet, the “intelligent, all-knowing” never change course because that would be admitting they were wrong, and, worst of all, relinquish power over the electorate.
If someone in congress finally stands up for us, then fantastic. If not, then there will be another wave in 2012 that throws more of the big-government crowd out. I would say it’s time to make those that caused the problem actually pay for it. I propose a special tax on the politicians equal to 55% of the increase in their net worth since being in government. After all, isn’t that really our money going to them?
Economist and weathermen are the only professions where you get paid to be constantly wrong. Using the deductive reasoning of Mr. Krugman, he’s still getting paid so he must be wrong.
Last week we heard from the Oracle of Omaha how thankful he was over the taxpayer bailing him out with TARP. As he said, because of TARP he’ll be celebrating Thanksgiving at his daughter’s house with a big turkey instead of McDonalds.
Yesterday, you have a Juliann Neher column in which she quotes Buffet’s statement that the rich should be paying more in taxes. I find this very odd given Mr. Buffet’s own profile.
Why do I find this odd? To understand, let’s look at the income levels that would be subject to the tax increases. As Juliann quote’s in her article, the liberals and many others would raise taxes only on the “rich” often quoted as those making more $250,000 per year if married or $200,000 if single.
We know that Buffet is a billionaire. How much would his tax rate increase? The answer might astonish you. But, that would be an increase of 0%. How can that be? Well, Mr. Buffett’s income from Berkshire is $175,000 per year. That’s right, $175,000 per year. Don’t believe me?
Well, look at page 7 of Berkshire’s Proxy Statement. The proxy shows Mr. Buffet’s income for the last 3 years which has been the same. Also, as is widely reported, Mr. Buffet is a big investor in municipal bonds. That would be tax-exempt municipal bonds. So, his interest income isn’t taxed, his income level would not reach the level of rich and he wants me to pay more in taxes.
Buffet is wealthy because he legally evades taxes. He invests in tax-exempt bonds and keeps his wealth in the form of untaxed capital gains.
Why don’t we let those that want a large federal government support it. Let’s see Buffet give the bulk of his fortune to the imperial federal government he supports and leave the rest of us alone.
After all, we all want to be rich like him.
Well, the TSA has come up with enhanced screening procedures. These procedures include a “groin” check and various other intrusions into our Constitutional rights.
We have too many citizens who are willing to exchange their Constitutional rights for the promise of safety by the government. However, this promise is hollow. Why? Because our government refuses to do the one thing that is more successful than all of thei efforts. Profile.
It is interesting that those liberals who screamed about the Patriot Act are silent on the current evasion of privacy brought to you by the imperial federal government.
I was reading Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell’s piece concluding that Obama should announce that he is not running for reelection in 2012. I was certainly hoping that the establishment media had finally come to the realization the rest of the country did a year ago that Obama’s policies are exactly what is not needed. But, my hopes were dashed relatively quickly into the article.
Their initial postulate was that Obama should announce his resignation to “seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made.” While that sounds good, the underlying question is: what decisions will he be making? The underlying premise is that we all agree with what has been done during Obama’s 2 years in office. I reject this premise as do the majority of the people who voted on November 2nd.
They continue spouting this desire to end the red state/blue state. However, do you expect them to change their opinions? No. Compromise is a one way street to these people. You either have their views or you’re dividing the country.
News Flash. The country has always been divided. Ever hear of the Civil War? If you go back in U.S. history, you can find numerous examples of how divided the U.S. electorate was. What is new is the ability of those with dissenting views to get their views heard and published. It is this new era of political free speech that has those in the ruling class and establishment media moaning and complaining about the division of the country.
I do agree with Caddell and Schoen on the need for cuts in spending, both domestic and military. However, being in business for the last 27 years, I really don’t need help in figuring out where to start cutting. First, cut the pensions and post-retirement healtcare benefits of all non-military government employees to be equivalent of U.S. multi-nationals. Second, eliminate 1/2 of the administrative positions currently in place to implement policy. This really means to make legislation without having to go through congress. Third, repeal the 17th amendment.
As a summary, the author’s believe that gridlock is bad and that the government can solve the economic problems facing the nation. There is nothing in the article hinting that perhaps it was the government’s policies that got us into this mess to begin with.
How dilutional are they?
It is interesting reading the editorial pages of the various liberal newpapers. All are saying the Republicans need to compromise, and they’re all saying that the Republicans need to stop being the party of “No.” From their perspective, the Republicans need to come to the president’s side of the argument so they can govern. What happens if they don’t? What happens if they keep pushing so the president has to come to the right?
The federal government shutsdown.
Remember what happened in the mid-1990s? It cost Republicans seats in next election cycle, i.e. nothing. Oh, some people were inconvenienced, but, in the end, nothing happened.
This time around, there is a conservative media that rivals the liberal, established media. If the Republicans stay on the offensive, they will win the day. It is time for the president and the liberals in congress to compromise with us.
Republicans, if you bend this time, you’ll break.
Go vote and vote for real change…Tea Party candidates.
Today is just the start. From tomorrow forward we need to push for exactly what we want:
– Reduced spending
– Reduction in regulations
– Repeal of Obamacare
– Create a power recession in Washington, D.C.
These are just a few of the items we need to keep pushing people we have elected to strive for. Even if they aren’t successful, keep brining them up and make Obama and the Democrats veto the ideas.
If you want real change and if you want to get the money out of politics, it starts with reducing spending at the federal level.