...and those failings have usually been bathed in seas of blood.
Posted on 06/28/2008 6:36:41 AM PDT by george76
With President Obama in office, the days of governments extracting a top marginal rate of 60% will return. Could bell bottoms be far behind?
Remember how the press made George Bush’s tax rate cuts look so “huge” in 2001 and 2003?
A March 10, 2001, New York Times article by reporters Frank Bruni and Richard W. Stevenson typified the approach. The trick was to talk about the (scary) $1.6 trillion impact of the “cuts” while minimizing attention to their time frame. At the linked article, the reporters waited until the ninth paragraph to tell us that it was a “$1.6 trillion, 10-year package” — that is, a less intimidating average reduction of $160 billion a year.
Using consistent language, Barack Obama’s tax proposals involve tax hikes of at least $2 trillion, and possibly $3 trillion, over the next 10 years.
Obama would bring tax policy back to the 1970s, or about where we were before the Reagan-era tax rate cuts that triggered the Seven Fat Years of 1983-1989. Despite being partially offset by Bush 41’s and Bill Clinton’s rate hikes, the Reagan rate cuts and their remnants propelled the economy forward almost non-stop for nearly 18 years until the 2000 bubble burst.
If a President Barack Obama gets his desired tax increases, he will show us that supply-side economics has a painful reverse gear.
This is one 1970s show that we don’t need to see. Economic stagnation in the name of class warfare doesn’t play well, even in reruns.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
If Obama even tries that, the result will screech the economy to a halt and the prospect of 10+ % unemployment will become reality. And he will be drummed out in the 2012 elections, if not earlier!
...and those failings have usually been bathed in seas of blood.
You overestimate the intelligence of the American people. The MSM will blame the remaining Republicans for the failure of Obama’s plan. All the while, the “People” will aggitate for more handouts. Sometimes I think “Atlas Shrugged” was a very prophetic tale.
Barack “Hoover” Obama will lead the United States into the biggest Depression ever.
Not to worry: Ronald Reagan will be there in 2012 to put things back to where they were pre-Obama. Getting rid of the National Health Service will be a bit tricky, and he might have to wait a few years to get the Supreme Court back to it's proper balance, but I know he can get the job done.
Fortunately, enough of the late Baby Boom generation (of which I am part of) remembers 1979 and 1980, with exorbitant inflation, equally exorbitant interest rates, and over 10% unemployment. Small wonder why President Carter was handily defeated by most voter demographics in 1980.
I don’t know who you think “Ronald Reagan” in 2012 will be, because to my knowledge there is no republican close to President Reagan now. We have McScream and a bunch of weak spined liberals who wanna be president, with no idea what to do or how to defeat the Marxists.
Jimmah Carter’s 2nd term.
IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA WON’T WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&feature=related
I'm being sarcastic--there is no Ronald Reagan. And that's my reply to those who think that the cost of getting one is to suffer the irreversible inroads that the leftists under Obama will wreak on our military, our economy, our freedoms and our way of life, as if his successor had only to snap his fingers to restore the nation to its pre-2008 state of being. Even a Reagan would be powerless to do that.
Does he mean the 1970s or the 1770s? I sincerely hope it’s the latter.
Why do people insist on believing that another Ronald Reagan is going to be elected in 2012 with an Obama election in ‘08? Just think of trying to rollback the massive welfare state that will be created. Do you think it will happen with no resistance? Will the recipients glady “do without” their largesse for the sake of our republic? Can we just rebuild the military at the drop of a hat? Can we just drop national healthcare on a dime? Come on...
McCain is terrible, granted, but we can at least try to further the conservative cause under him, and perhaps push a new party to force the repubs over to the right.
Exactly...
the New York Times will begin a series of stories entitled “the Legacy of Bush” and will show some rubble in Iraq, some homeless bums in a major US city, pictures of NOLA during Katrina, etc, etc. They will begin to show pictures of Barack with a halo around his head and his hand on a sick child, show how public school funding has quadrupled (but not show that test scores are much lower), show a picture of the “New New Orleans”, etc. and the majority, like good Pavlovian dogs, will blame the state of the nation on GWB.
I hope everyone will remember what shape the country was in when Bill Clinton and Democratic Congress had control of everything. And please don’t forget the Jimmuh Cartuh days.
Dems are controling things now and look at the mess we are in.
That alone should be enough to get conservatives back in control of everything at every political level, starting in mid-January ‘09. Instead, the entire country is still moving even further to the political left and at risk of becoming a socialistic country for the long-term. Frustrating!
On this, McCain and Obama are two peas in a pod. McCain, like Obama, opposed the Bush tax cuts on “the wealthy.” He now claims he supports these tax cuts but only because he want the votes of clueless conservatives.
I think we are headed for something more than socialism. Obeyme smacks of communism. Not good. If you read up on his economic theory you will understand that this guy along with the the Democrat congress could easly cause not only a depression in this country but also world wide.
McCain might be a squish, but he’s not a pea. Read my link above.
UNDERSTANDING POLITICS AND ECONOMIES 101:
DEMOCRATIC:
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbara Streisand sings for you.
REPUBLICANISM:
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?
SOCIALIST:
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
COMMUNIST:
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one,
milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.
AMERICAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.
FRENCH CORPORATION:
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.
JAPANESE CORPORATION:
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.
GERMAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.
ITALIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows but you don’t know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.
RUSSIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.
TALIBAN CORPORATION:
You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don’t milk them because you cannot touch any creature’ private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.
IRAQI CORPORATION:
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.
BELGIAN CORPORATION:
You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he’s French, other times he’s Flemish.
The Flemish cow won’t share with the French cow. The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow’s milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.
FLORIDA CORPORATION:
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither. Some people can’t figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION:
You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegals.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.
Thanks.
Some get this; most do not.
Ireland now has reasonable capital gain tax rates, thus are doing nicely.
I post from Heritage, and it’s just too dry for most. For my philosophical opponents here, too many numbers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.