Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Not ugly - Revolting! America fights back against extremists and corporate tyranny. Also, some light hearted commentary from your basic average dude.
Not ugly - Revolting! America fights back against extremists and corporate tyranny. Also, some light hearted commentary from your basic average dude.
14 comments:
omg...I'm sorry, but that's has to be one of the dumbest questions I have ever heard anyone ask. Ever.
Why do we have almost a 10% unemployment rate right now?
Oh, I don't know...maybe it has something to do with a little thing called a RECESSION.
Perhaps you've heard of it?
I have heard of it. And I blame the Bush Tax cuts for it.
Of course you do, but please, tell me more...
How exactly did the Bush tax cuts compel Barney Frank and his cohorts to put pressure on the banks to make home loans to people who had no way of paying them back?
And then, how did the Bush Tax cuts compel the Federal Government to guarantee all those bad home loans, thus creating the conditions for the Freddy and Fanny meltdown?
Please, I can't wait to hear this...be as detailed and specific as possible.
Both Bush and Obama came into office during a recession, but they both pursued different policies in response.
Here's a good article by Peter Stock at Business Insider, where he compares the results of both of thier responses 12 months after each recession "officially" ended.
The title says it all: "President Bush Is Crushing Obama On Post Recession Performance"
He backs it up with real world data and facts.
Read it if you dare.
Teaser:
"What is important is the policy response from both Presidents and their success, or lack of it in putting the economy back on track...Bush responded with pro growth fiscal policy vs Obama's Keynesian approach....each quite different and so far 12 months following the end of the last recession the data suggests that President Bush's tax cutting policies were more effective then President Obama's big government tax/spend/re-regulate approach. The data doesn't lie."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bush-obama-post-recession-performance-2010-8#ixzz17mEgirLZ
Interesting to note that both John Kennedy and Ronald Reagen also came into office during a recession, and they both responded with big tax cuts.
Boom years followed.
Kennedy, Reagan, Bush vs. Obama
No brainer.
JFK vs. Obama on Tax Cuts.
Watch this video, it's the conservative argument for tax cuts during a recession, made more concisely and eloquently than I could ever do, by President John F. Kennedy ( my Boston homeboy!).
They just don't make Democratic Presidents like they used to, do they?
http://www.atr.org/video-jfk-vs-obama-tax-cuts-a5379#
Thohea,
Make sure you watch that video above.
As John Kennedy said (and proved): "Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment."
History proved him correct.
Of course, and unfortunately, todays tax battle isn't really about reducing taxes, but merely keeping them where they have been for the last ten years (technically it shouldn't be called the battle over the Bush tax cuts, but rather the battle of the Obama tax increases).
The stimulative power of Bush's cuts is probably played out (of course a rise in the rates would still be economically devastating).
What we really need is a new round of additional cuts, but that is a battle for another day (hopefully soon).
The Obama Agenda is Dead, Part II
Favorite quote of the day:
"Today is a great day for liberty," said Hatch. "Congress must obey the Constitution rather than make it up as we go along. Liberty requires limits on government, and today those limits have been upheld." -Senator Orrin Hatch
But the best thing about today's Federal Court ruling is this exchange posted on today's Drudgereport from Oct. 22, 2009:
CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?
Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."
sweet.
I'm confused. All I keep reading from the right is that they don't want radical court decisions swaying the will of the people. I guess it only applies to issues they don't like - like gay marriage, gays in the military and - well anything gay.
1. Yes, I agree that you are confused, that's part of your charm.
2. While it is true that Conservatives oppose "radical court decisions" that illegitimately usurp the democratic process, that would have no relevance here because there was nothing at all "radical" about this decision. It was based on sound legal reasoning and established constitutional principles.
It was the Individual Mandate aspect of Obamacare that was truly radical: it's extension of Government power and control over the rights of the individual citizens was completely without precedent in American history. If the President was half as intelligent as his supporters have claimed he is, he would have realized that himself (after all, even Sarah Palin figured that one out).
3. I wasn't aware that there was a Gay angle to the Individual Mandate. Is there? (See #1, above).
I also do not agree with that part of the Health Care bill. No-one should be forced to get insurance. It should be provided to all as is done in most other developed countries.
Did I say there was a gay angle to the individual mandate?? Of course not - more of your really whacked out rhetoric. Re-read what I wrote.
What is the difference between being forced to buy Insurance that you don't want or being forced to pay increased taxes for a service that you don't want?
Either way you are having something you don't want forced upon you by the State.
Why would you say that you are against one but not the other, when the unwanted burden they place upon the individual Citizen are identical?
Oh wait a minute...I think I know the answer...it's because, being a Socialist, you trust private business (Insurance Companies)less and trust the Federal Government more?
That's it, right?
Oh OK...I reread the gay thing...I think I see your point now...because gay Marriage always looses when put to a democratic vote of the people and only gets instituted by activist judges?
That's why you think conservatives don't like judicial activism? Anti-gay bias?
Is that what you meant?
You nailed it Andre! I trust the government to provide health CARE. Private companies provide health BUSINESS. It should be about wellness - not profits.
You also are correct on the judicial activism! But it's not just gay issues - it's about many civil liberties now and in the past that were defeated by popular vote but are now known to be in defense of our constitution. Equal rights for minorities, votes for women - that sort of thing.
Your on a roll Andre!
Post a Comment