An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Fred Thompson: the New Reagan
Fred Thompson wrote an op-ed for the Opinion Journal (WSJ). In he makes the case for tax cuts: lower taxes mean more economic growth.
I don’t think that there are any serious political commentators who harbor serious doubts about whether or not Thompson will run: he will. His campaign has, in a way, already started. He is trying to appeal to the conservative base: both ‘authoritarian’ and ‘libertarian’ conservatives: the same coalition that brough Ronald Reagan (and also Bush) to power.
Please click here to read more.
47 Responses to “Fred Thompson: the New Reagan”
This just shows you how bankrupt the Republicans are for ideas. Cutting spending should be the lead idea for the Republicans along with avoiding future massive increases in entitlements (such as getting illegal immigration under control).
Yet, due to the demographics of the United States, no politician can get elected by promosing budget cuts and belt tightening. Politicians get elected by promsing more goodies from the government while implying that someone else will pay the bills. Just look at the Edwards campaign. If there any doubt that those voting for free health care believe that others (the rich) will end up paying the bills.
I am not impressed at all with this Op-Ed piece. The first thing that jumps out at me is the claim that with the current tax cuts the budget will once again be balanced and have a surplus by 2010; too bad the piece did not show in it that there was already a surplus just a few years ago.
The thing that really gets my goat is the claim that tax-cuts are going to be wonderful for all. From a perspective of our military state, that is just horse-hookey. We need money to build up our troop strength. We need money to repair and replace equipment after six years of continual use. We need to find monies to pay for new equipment for the new troops coming in. We need to expand the infrastructure and support facilities for our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen – people need space to sleep, work, train, and eat. The quality of life programs that have been intiated since the early 90′s are a sad rememberance of what would be the minimum standards for our volunteer fighting force.
This whole lets cut taxes is a suck-up to those who have NOT SACRIFICED during these last six years. Like POTUS Bush had said on the Jim Lehrer Newshour in late 2006, “I want (civilian) people to not be bothered by what they see on teevee. I want them to save money for their kids education.” Well, BS! When you send people to do a job, you don’t undercut them by not getting them the needed equipment and resources to do the work.
I have conservative friends who tell me that their sacrifice to GWOT is that they pay their taxes. Those taxes go to support people like myself who carry out a foreign policy that I personally think is shakey, but it nonetheless my job. Now the tax-cuts will even cause even the little that they sacrifice to be even less; while they get to stay home, have sex with the wife whenever he can, run off to see the kid’s in some school event, and off to get a beer after work.
A tax cut is a great idea, but the requirements placed on the military has to get more monies to help re-build and build up the forces. The military though needs to have the screws tightened to stop spending money on trival items that really do relate to the upkeep of our men and women directly – STOP THE SILLY PORK SPENDING!
Well us Neoconservatives would certainly favor a true Neoconservative running in the next election if for no other reason then to return the focus of what we trully believe rather then what the far left hate mongers have pinned on us.
What do we really believe? Neoconservatives are not only just southern Liberals any longer who love lower taxes(Lower taxes have proven over and over and over again to stimulate growth and provide new jobs and new opportunities)
stronger not bigger government,(strong military able to project power without having to use it however the military does have to be used in the war on terror)
Less intrusive government(a government not at the beckon call of every political action committee, interest group who wants a bill passed to help their own personal agenda (Christians, Gays, Abortionists, Gun Rights, Military, Welfare)
Pride and honor in being an American(remember Ronald Reagan’s its great to be an American speeches all the time)Well it is great to be an American despite what the sad sack left/liberals claim over and over. This has not a damn thing to do with with Patriotism so don’t spring that card on me.
Some tolerance of welfare(Yeah we are ex liberals so we still have the little guy in mind. We just think that the little guy should help himself. If he wants to help himself then by golly we want to help him too. If not well then let him wallow in poverty while we move on and spend our time on those who DO want to help themselves.)
Affilitation with the Religious Right. This does not mean with Christians. This means with all Relgious peoples in the USA who are right of center and share conservative values. This does not mean we want to pass social legislation that reflects our values but that our legislation should be influenced by these social values. There is a big difference here. This is why I an many True Neoconservatives are against the passage of any bill FOR or AGAINST Gay rights. That is an intrusive use of government to support one group at the expense of another group and that is unacceptable.
It would be good to return to stronger but smaller government. I think we should do away with Homeland security and the CIA. They are both proving to be unproductive. We can just ask the French to do our spying for us and Andy Griffith and Barney Knox to be our Homeland Security.
Of course Im joking but seriously whats the point of having a SPY agency if you wont let them SPY. Spying by its nature supposes violating rights to obtain information.
So yes it would be nice to have a true Neoconservative run again to once again put before America a true Conservative vs. a True Liberal (as now defined by Americans)and lets let America decide based on the facts not on how loud the left or right can shout.
Well we are going to have to pay off those massive bonds Bush floated. What he means is virtually cut everything out except service on the national debt. He is talking about a surplus on the deficit, not the debt. Its like having a massive credit card bill, you are above water as long as you can make the minimum payment. The economy will not “spur” as long as the debt is stifling and there is no way in hell it’s going to un-stifle in a couple of years. Don’t you silly republicans listen to your own economists? If there were no other reason at all, we are going to have to raise taxes just to pay off our debt. What you thought this was free?
Thompson is just telling you what you want to hear to get elected.
White Agent,
If the federal government runs a surplus everyyear, the debt would go down because over 300 billion of the current year budget is service to the debt (paying off older bonds). The best thing for the government to do is run at a breakeven point. Running a surplus just encourages politicians to start new programs.
You should look up the economic term “rachet effect.” It is big after the energy boom of the 1980′s when states and cities that benefit from the energy boom went on a spending boom that created long term obligations while forgetting that the there was not long term income stream to pay them.
The flip side of your argument is that you cannot tax your way to economic growth.
That tax cuts increase economic growth is macro 101.
That tax cuts, unaccompanied by spending cuts, will stimulate growth more than enough to pay for the cuts, is simply unsupported by either theoretical models (Google Greg Mankiw’s “Dynamic Scoring – A Back of the Envelope Guide”) or empirical data.
Or, as Glenn Hubbard would say, “Democrats are the party of tax and spend, Republicans of borrow and spend”. Period.
I am going to repeat what a pundit said, would somebody please explain the important wotks of Fred Thompson. From what I understand, his Senate record makes Kerry look like a Fulbright. How does an undistinguished Senate record, but a larger TV and entertainment carreer, qualify this “star” as the leader of the free world.
It is quite clear that many do not understand the language of taxation. What does “tax cut” mean? It means a reduction in the percentage of tax applied to the revenue being taxed. For example, if the tax rate is 40% and it is reduced to 30% we say there has been a tax cut. But what people falsely believe is that the reduction in the tax rate means a reduction in the tax revenue. That is where ignorance comes in.
Which would you rather have, 40% of 100,000, or 30% of 150,000? Clearly the latter is more than the former ($45,000 versus $40,000). But how can that be, the rate is lower? The reason is that the revenue being taxed is higher. That is precisely what happens when tax rates are cut. People are motivated to generate more taxable revenue – giving the government more to tax.
If that is true, and it is, who in their right mind wants a tax rate increase knowing that it will lead to a tax revenue reduction?
The answer: Liberals who want to promote class warfare and class envy. In the minds of these people the rich must be punished to make those who are not rich feel better. But the “feeling” is based upon ignorance – but then liberals rely upon ignorance to advance their political goals.
Robert Barney: good to see someone who actually understands what the real issue is here. The US has a formula for growth that relies on relatively low rates of taxation. If taxes rise, as they have in the EU, econ stagnation ensues and growth stops. A rising tide…….
The Dems have no response to this eminently rational policy other than to promote class warfare by stating that some incomes grow far less than others. And a potpourri of stats that no one fact-checks. Read the New Yorker to see how far fact-checking has become lost art.
Unfortunately Mr. Barney has absolutely no idea of how it works in the real world. As Mr. Bell pointed out there is no model that has been proven to apply in the real world where tax cuts unaccompanied by spending cuts will always generate more government revenue. The plain hard truth is that Mr. Barney’s argument fails completely at current rates of taxation. At much higher rates of taxation it is a viable argument but no study of any kind has shown that it is a universal rule irregardless of tax rate or amount of income. In addition it simply isn’t a viable argument for the majority of Americans in the tax range he cites. Have you heard of the difference between salary and hourly wages, Mr. Barney? Many people, in fact I would say most in the income range you mention are in fact salaried employees. They can put in as many hours as they wish and their income will not go up. In today’s corporate environment the ranks of middle management have been slashed. There is little opportunity for advancement. Corporations aren’t handing out salary increases in place of promotion either. Or have you managed to miss reports that unanimously note that income for the middle and lower classes in this country have been stagnating for years? Any argument that broadly states that lower taxes will always be a good thing is based purely in ideology, not facts.
Why don’t the Republicans respond to what is ailing us in the 21st century instead of looking for the next Ronald Reagan? George Bush modelled his presidency after Reagan’s, and the conservatives fell for the act. He got the speech patterns (except was and is a terrible speaker) but lacked Reagan’s strength, instincts or skills as a diplomat. Do you really want another poor imitation of Reagan? Evaluate candidates for who they are and what they stand for, and the solutions that they offer for today’s problems instead of continually searching for the embodiment of an icon from a different era.
BTW, I’m not putting down Thompson here, just saying he should be evaluated on his own merits, instead of being a cheap imitation of another man.
You mean like Obama’s or Hilary Clinton’s record? I’m sorry but if that’s your standard for noteable political careers, Thompson already has them beat. And he has a rock solid record on fighting government corruption. And maybe you didn’t realize that he currently serves as Chairman of the Security Advisory Board in the State Department.
This is definitely key. Both Democrats and Republicans distract us with juicy sound bytes and non-issues and end up getting elected without having to tackle the difficult issue of federal spending.
Democrats complain about rising deficits, but they’re not willing to cut spending, meaning the only way they would be able to shrink the deficit would be to raise taxes.
Republicans complain about taxes, but they’re not willing to cut spending, thereby ensuring us with continued rising deficits.
Fiscal responsibility is more than just lowering taxes and keeping deficits low. Fiscal responsibility, at its core, is about limiting the amount of money that the federal government is spending. Yet few politicians ever address this issue.
Exactly Nick and you summarized the situation perfectly.
Re: the lower the taxes the higher the income for the gov.: there’s a limit to that – a downpoint a turning point at which lowering taxes does not result in more money anymore. Key is to determine what point that exactly is.
Yes, I believe you are referring to the concept embodied by the Laffer Curve, whereby “tax revenue can be maximized by setting tax rates at an optimum point.” I don’t believe there is a consensus among economists where this “optimum point” lies, though recent implementation of flat taxes in Eastern Europe suggests that this “optimum point” may be less than 30%.
However, to a true fiscal conservative, where this “optimum point” becomes a mute point since lowering taxes is seen as a good thing irrespective of the amount of revenue that it generates for the government. In fact, a true free market capitalist would argue that maximizing the revenue for the federal government is a bad thing given that virtually all services provided by the federal government would be better off (in their mind) being provided by the private sector.
I would argue that keeping spending low is the true hallmark of a fiscal conservative because it manages to solve both problems: 1) if government spends less, then less revenue is needed, and the American people need not pay as much in taxes, and 2) if the government spends less, more services will be provided by the private sector as opposed to the public sector.
Thompson’s argument about lowering taxes is nothing new. Republican have long been arguing for lower taxes. But it’s the idea of cutting spending that they seem unwilling to talk about, or least implement. And the reason is obvious. Lowering taxes is an easy sell. Telling the American people that you’re going to cut spending on government programs, however, is a much more difficult sell.
Cutting taxes does absolutely nothing to shrink the size and scope of the federal government, which ought to be a priority of any politician who calls himself/herself a true fiscal conservative.
As of today, there isn’t a single presidential candidate who has proposed serious ways to cut spending other than libertarian Republican Congressman Ron Paul. His proposals are not likely to be popular with many Americans, but at least he’s talking like a true fiscal conservative rather than pandering to social conservatives.
Mr Elliot – Please list Fred’s accomplishments. We know of his acting resume, but what legislation did he introduce and see enacted. Being part of the Clinton witch hunt doesn’t qualify him as a legislator, unless you admire Burton.
Sure, that’s obviously true. I did not intend to suggest that this is all that matters to me – it does play a role, but the tax rate is dependent on many more factors. Simply put – if 25% is the ideal rate, i’d still rather have it at, say, 20%.
Agreed. I am quite happy that Dutch conservatives do do that (nowadays). Thatcher did it as well.
I am going to repeat what a pundit said, would somebody please explain the important wotks of Fred Thompson. From what I understand, his Senate record makes Kerry look like a Fulbright. How does an undistinguished Senate record, but a larger TV and entertainment carreer, qualify this “star� as the leader of the free world.
Rudi does not this apply to Obama too? Why is it its okay to let Obama run on being a complete and total moron and its not okay to let Fred Thompson run on the same agenda?
George Bush modelled his presidency after Reagan’s, and the conservatives fell for the act.
Kritter I know Ronald Reagan and George Bush is no Ronald Reagan. Well I really don’t know Reagan but you get the point.
For one thing a true Neoconservative believes what I posted above and Bush went and tore all that down and built something most of us conservatives don’t even recognize. I’ve never been much of an apologist for Bush I just feel like that what he preaches is better then what the left preaches so by default I defend him.
However once he is gone. Lets return to the true NeoConservative movement which embraces Liberals as well as conservatives.
A movement that sees the government in such a way as to not be involved in our lives only to sorta oversee them and make sure we don’t run amuck.
This is what we ALL want. Democrats, Republicans. Everyone. Ronald Reagan let the gays be gays and the Christians be Christian without passing legislation for or against either group. This is America we all want and not what Hillary, Obama, Bush or Gingrich preach.
It’s why Reagan was elected in two landslides. Its what America wants and it darn sure is what those long suffering Conservatives want back in our party.
No Nobody, Obama is much younger than Thompson. Obama has many 1st in his record to negate his lack of experience. I wonder if Thompson wrote the opinion piece or if a staffer did the bulk of the writing. Maybe we can compare some of the early writings of W and Obama, see who is the bright bulb and who is the dimmer.
Besides, this opinion piece and post is about FD being the next Reagan. None of you Righties have proven his worth to sleep with Bonzo. I suprised no one brings up either Clinton…
First, here is a webpage that has several direct links to many materials on Fred Thompson ( nearly one hundred if memory serves. );
Now, the reason why Fred will make the difference as the 44th President of The United States is very simple:
* He will arrive and set his sights on overreaching legislation and greedy career politicians and the rest of the nonsense occuring on a daily basis in DC.
* Fred will then come to us and tell us what he wants to do and WE MUST provide him the power to do it.
That’s citizen activism on a national scale boys and girls…The power of the next president will be derived directly from the people. AND we will/can give him that thanks to one direct and almost immediate avenue…The internet.
Fred has already told us his plans. All we have to do is provide him the power to straighten out this mess we call the federal government.
ARE YOU READY???
nic says
What services will the private sector step in and provide when the government quits, nic? I’d love to see a list.
Nobody Says-
Reagan is not coming back- and Thompson is not Reagan- and if Reagan were here don’t you think its fuzzy logic that no one would be asking him why he decided to sell arms to Iran- an enemy state? The country is in a totally different place than we were in the ’80′s. It puzzles me no end why conservatives keep looking for the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and then settling for cheap imitations.
George Bush read books about Reagan which is where we got the “Axis Of Evil”- it sounded like the “Evil Empire” to him. He didn’t want to be perceived as weak like his father or morally directionless like Clinton. So we got a poor copy, who was weaker than any of the others. But for 6 years the conservatives supported him because they thought he was like Reagan.
Neoconservatism embraces neither fiscal/economic freedom that true conservatives promote nor the personal/social freedom that true liberals promote. Neoconservatism embraces a moderate amount of government intervention in both economic policy and social policy as well as an enormous amount of intervention in foreign policy. Neoconservatism’s ambitious (or utopian) foreign policy goals are summed up at The Project For the New American Century, The Weekly Standard, and in a piece written by William Kristol and Robert Kagan entitled Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy:
America wasn’t founded on neoconservative principles of the United States as the world’s policeman. It was founded on classical liberal (libertarian) principles of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations.
George W. Bush hasn’t been a disaster because he’s rejected neoconservatism. It’s been a disaster precisely because he’s embraced neoconservatism. He campaigned as a small government conservative; instead, has given us big government conservatism. He campaigned as being against nation-building; instead, he has plunged our country into one of the biggest and costliest nation-building exercises our nation has ever undertaken.
And the neoconservatives have been the ones egging him on, arguing that Bush has near dictatorial power with regards to foreign policy and that he must expand the war on terrorism even further.
Is this really what you want, Nobody?
No Nobody, Obama is much younger than Thompson. Obama has many 1st in his record to negate his lack of experience.
S0 Obama is younger then Thompson so that makes it okay for him to be inexperienced? Many firsts? Proposing Legislation makes him qualified to lead the country.
I actually do not support Thompson for president because he is not qualified but to say he is less experienced then Obama despite having spent a lot longer in the senate, is older and wiser (Typically age translates to wisdom thru experience.)Yest despite all this Obama is qualified and Fred Thompson is not. I just gotta find out what you guys on the left are smoking!!!
Not being a free market capitalist, I favor the government providing a modest safety net and would be reluctant to turn certain things over to the private sector. Having said that, I would favor privatizing certain services that the government is currently involved in.
Postal Service – With FedEx and UPS as well as the growing use of electronic mail, there is absolutely no reason that the government needs to be involved with collecting and delivering our mail. A government-owned monopoly probably isn’t the most efficient way of delivering our mail.
NASA – With all the unsolved problems here in the U.S., pouring tens of billions of dollars into space travel strikes me as a failure to get our priorities in order. The money it takes to launch space shuttle would much better be spent on helping the poor or disabled or helping to pay down our national debt. Let wealthy entrepreneurs fund these type of projects (already underway), not American taxpayers. A government-owned monopoly probably isn’t the best way to create incentives to pioneer newer and less expensive technologies in the field of space travel.
Social Security – This program is a mess. We all know that it can’t go on forever. There simply isn’t enough money to pay 100% of the promised benefits to all people indefinitely. No one seems to agree when the program will become insolvent, but almost everyone seems to agree that sooner or later, people who have payed into this program are going to have to receive a cut in their benefits. Given the fact that we have individual retirement accounts such as Roth IRA’s, I don’t unerstand why the government should be forcing Americans to take part in a government-run program that generates poor returns. The downside is that the transition costs of privatizing this program could be enormous.
It’s a modestly-sized list, but it’s a start.
Great post nicrivera- neoconservatism clashes with paleoconservatism because you can’t be the world’s policeman or benevolent friend and opt for small government at the same time.
The presidency of George Bush has proven that even when we have good intentions, we muck it up, because of mistaken beliefs in the inherent superiority of our culture and our way of life. Oppressed people need to fight for their own freedom- as we did in the Revolutionary War and the French did in the French Revolution. A foreign people are not going to fight for our ideals, and will invariably resent an occupation as a sign of our arrogance. We did more harm than good in Vietnam and are doing more harm than good in Iraq. Since we have opened up Pandora’s Box, however, we may not have the choice to leave, even if we want to.
What makes you think our benevolent intervention elsewhere would end any differently?
Nic coming from you I take comfort in the words of Winston Churchhill.
“I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents.”
Neo Conservatism is too complex for your mind to grasp Nic. Sorry but a libertarian who wants to legalize drugs, porn and all sorts of sordid behavior is hardly the posterchild for condemning the conservative movement. However I do understand why you think its bad.
“Down with Bush!” Darn that Tourette Syndrome.
Not being a free market capitalist,
What are you Nic?
we muck it up
We havent really mucked anything up. We attacked Iraq and Afghanistan. Killed lots of terrorists. Cut off funding for Hamas. Are turning Iran into a bankrupt nation. Not a peep out of Hezzbollah.
And yet.
We have mucked it up because heaven forbid “the terrorists dont like us”
Never ceases to amaze me the mentality of an appeaser.
Mr Elliot or Winghunter:
If Fred Thompson is your answer to corruption please explain this from Wiki.
WingHunter says:
* He will arrive and set his sights on overreaching legislation and greedy career politicians and the rest of the nonsense occuring on a daily basis in DC.
* Fred will then come to us and tell us what he wants to do and WE MUST provide him the power to do it.
Now is Freddy going to do this or bring us another S&L scandal, Neil Bush’s education S/W may not make it without MiddleEast support.
Nobody,
The second line of that paragraph says all we need to know about big government conservatives.
- You renounce the libertarians who stood with conservatives against big government liberals when the Democrats were in power. But once the Republicans came to power, “conservatives” decided that they no longer needed libertarians, and thus abandoned any pretense of smaller goverment.
- You can’t stand the idea that some people might actually think that they, and not the government, ought to be the ones to decide what they smoke or what they put into their bodies, and thus you support the War on (some) Drugs, a failed government program consisting of sending SWAT teams to raid the houses of non-violent drug users, filling our already over-crowded prisons with non-violent drug users, and sending millions of dollars in aid to right-ring governments in South America so that they can fund paramilitary operations against peasants and pour herbicibes on the fields of coca-leaf farmers.
- You can’t stand the idea that some people might actually think that they, and not the government, ought to be decide whether or not they look pictures of naked people having sex, and thus you support the Justice Department (which apparently, has been staffed by lawyers from Pat Robertson’s Regent University) going after businesses that sell porn across state lines.
No, Nobody, I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian-liberal. But one doesn’t have to be a libertarian to believe that people have the right to smoke pot and sell porn without being fined or jailed by the government.
Frankly, I could care less whether you dislike such “sordid behavior.” You can believe whatever you want. But your beliefs do not give the government the right to force Americans to live by your moral code. Our government isn’t some tool for you to use to punish people whose lifestyles you don’t approve of.
Our government was founded to protect our freedom, not take it away from us.
For anyone who wants to know what I’m talking about when I refer to the Justice Department, please read Radley Balko’s article over at Reason. It’s not just a matter of how the Justice Department goes after people who grow marijuana, sell bongs, or distribute pornography. It’s the selective way in which the Justice Department decides who to prosecute and who not to prosecute.
We havent really mucked anything up. We attacked Iraq and Afghanistan. Killed lots of terrorists. Cut off funding for Hamas. Are turning Iran into a bankrupt nation. Not a peep out of Hezzbollah
Nobody- You can’t possibly be serious. Yes, we have killed a lot of terrorists , but we’ve killed hundreds of thousands of civilians also. We destroyed the structure of a society on the basis of a bunch of lies. Yes, the terrorists don’t like us, but increasingly neither do the moderates in the Arab world, or even our own allies. Travelled much lately? If you have you’ll see what spreading freedom and benevolent hegemony have done for America’s stature in the realm of world opinion. You think that if you just indescriminately invade these countries and kill bad guys without providing an economic or stable political base for the people there that you’re winning the war on terror? You must be drinking the same kool-aid as tricky Dick Cheney! Yes, its almost a consensus that we’ve mucked it up!
Ladies and Gentleman,
This article related to an op-ed on the subject of lower taxes fueling the economy. To say the discussion has gotten off track would be an understatement.
Back to taxes. In response to my explanation of “tax rates” versus “tax revenues” (go back to posting: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/2008-elections/12188/fred-thompson-the-new-reagan/#comment-73391), Jim Satterfield wrote:
The plain hard truth is that Mr. Barney’s argument fails completely at current rates of taxation. At much higher rates of taxation it is a viable argument but no study of any kind has shown that it is a universal rule irregardless of tax rate or amount of income. In addition it simply isn’t a viable argument for the majority of Americans in the tax range he cites.
First, the tax rate I used was an example to explain what a rate is, and how it is possible to raise more tax revenue with a lower rate.
Second, the notion that tax rates don’t matter, even at the rates I used (30 versus 40 percent), is nonsense. Anytime the government takes more than 1/3 of the revenue generated by an enterprise, those generating that revenue will begin to look for ways to shelter or avoid payment of taxes.
Third, the taxpayers responsible for payment of the largest amounts of taxes are business people and professionals who can turn on or off the flow of income. Doctors can work 6 days a week or can turn their attention to golf. Lawyers are no different. Many professions and forms of business, faced with significantly high taxes, will simply cut back or alter their lifestyles rather than pay confiscatory tax rates.
No one wants to become a slave to the state and that’s just how business people feel when the government reaches beyond taking 1/3 of taxable revenue. And I think I am being overtly generous using a number that high. I suspect that Steve Forbe’s flat tax rate of 15 to 20% is the most balanced number. When business people have to stop to think about how much tax their paying, business suffers.
And finally, those who say it makes no difference at current tax rates are ignoring the record high volumes of tax revenue pouring into the national treasury. It is preposterous to suggest those record revenues are not due to the Bush tax cuts. But if you doubt it, watch what happens when the Democrat’s tax increase kicks in.
On another note, I am sympathetic with those who decry runaway government spending. The “fix” is quite simple and I wonder who opposes it?
The Constitution should be amended to give the President a line item veto. Budgets could be signed into law with specific expenditures struck out by the President. Those spending cuts (individual vetos) could go back before Senate and Congress to be overruled by a 2/3 majority.
I am curious. Who among you would oppose giving the President a line item veto for budgetary spending?
Why?
If this is true why do the EU-Scandavian countries rank at the top for quality of life? Many of your examples work 70-80 hour weeks because they enjoy their jobs, (also make tons of money) the idea that driven professionals working partime (40 hours) makes no sense.
Yes, we have killed a lot of terrorists , but we’ve killed hundreds of thousands of civilians also.
WE have not.
Sunnis killing Shia and Vice versa have killed 100,000′s of people over there. The USA kills terrorists and yes we are not innocent.
This is the exact verbage I would expect from appeasers. Any death that occurs if we are within a 1000 miles of it by default must be our fault.
Nic Neoconservatives want small governement and less intrusive government. Bush has butchered that up. I want to return to Neoconservative roots which I think most people in this country actually do want. However in fairness to him. There is a war. 911 and all. The democrats Demanded a new cabinet level position. Homeland security. They just could not contain themselves in increasing big governement. Once this was done the handcuffs came off and Bush and his people became obsessed with fighting the war on terror and ignoring all the other principals that got him elected.
So yes you are trying to blame Bush for something he really had no control over and that is what causes me to by default defend him. Its why Liberals defend murderers. Conservatives Prosecute them. Its our nature. My nature is to defend someone/anyone who is being falsely accused for political gain. Its why libertarians flocked to Reagan. Its why once we stop letting these silly liberals define the debate which is “BUSH LIED” and get back to who has the best Ideas.
America will once again turn to Neoconservatives because by the nature of their beliefs they incorporate about 75 percent of Americans in this mix. You know I’m right nic its why you and your kind joined with Neocons in the first place.
Kritter
Why is it you guys are so consumed with what Qatar thinks about you. Denmark? Germany? France?
Why this consuming desire to please? We were attacked. We are fighting as much for them as we are for America. I keep posting absolute truths from your own left think tanks and you ignore them and scream “Bush Lied!”
You end your post in absolute hatred. You must be drinking the same kool-aid as tricky Dick Cheney!
While I agree with some of what you say. Some of what you say is undeniably the truth. Yet partial truth does not make truth.
The unadulterated truth is this.
This here shapes my foreign policy and my GWOT.
We are at war. Jihadist and Caliphatists would incite to riot the masses of peaceloving Muslims in such fashion as to make the Muslim religion itself a movement with the intent of global domination thru civil war and unrest. Now that is not the case as of yet. The Muslim faith is a good and honorable, albeit very conservative faith. This aspect of the Muslims must be preserved. The muslims themselves are not yet showing willingness to confront these terrorists and therefore the USA and the Coalition of the willing must be willing to fight this war.
This is a war against the Jihadist and the Caliphatists. The line keeps geting drawn and we kept stepping back and drawing a new line. Well now Bush said enough is enough. Time to fight and the appeasers jumped up in mass and said whats wrong with 50 more years of Lines?
In the meantime statistics overwhelmingly are pointing to the massive growth of Muslim while countries in Europe are no longer even wanting to Breed or whatever politically correct form you choose to throw on the reproductive task. While at the same time the birthrates of Muslims is 3 times what the Birthrates of Non Muslims is.
The war will be won when the Muslims themselves show the willingness to confront their own criminal element (Terrorists, Jihadist. Caliphatist, Radical Clerics)and throw them out. Then the boys can come home. This is like the war on crime. We did not give up after a few years because crime kept happening
We fight crime daily. We have millions of Police officers all over the country fighting crime. This is the same with the global war on terror. It is like fighting crime. It MUST be dealt with. It Must.
Or else it will consume nation after nation until we are all wearing burkas and praying to allah 5 times a day. Is that what you want?
I don’t.
Nobody- Even Reagan knew that we are part of the world community, that we had to get along with other countries. That is where true strength comes from- not one country imposing military might over others- it is soft power. Countries go along with us because by doing so their self-interest is maintained as well. It is the essence of diplomacy.
Bush learned that unilateralism was a dismal failure in his first administration. As we have learned, we cannot solve the complex ME problems through military might. So, I don’t think thumbing our noses at the rest of the world, and putting our resources into huge weapons systems that may or may not work is the answer. If we arm up, every two bit country will try to do the same- witness what happened in Iran and N Korea after the “Axis of Evil” speech. China is arming herself, and outpacing us economically. Will she be the next world superpower that we have to worry about? If so, as in the Cold War, we will need strong alliances with like-minded nations. So, yes I care about what some Arab in Qatar thinks, and I care about what the Danes and Germans think. We have to, because we have already seen that we cannot go it alone. Even Chimpy now knows this.
And we indirectly caused those deaths- by removing the only stability Iraq had. The invasion led to looting, chaos and civil war. Bremer’s arrogant leadership led to what we and the Iraqis face today. But if you and Cheney are happy with our progress, there, then hey. My feeling is that being a superpower gives us the responsibility not to abuse that power. And invading Iraq with false evidence was a blatant abuse of our power. We were attacked- but not by Iraq. We should concentrate on fighting the terrorists themselves and improving our ability to root out their cells at home.
GB took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan, and everyone knows it. That is why the WH has offered the “War Czar” position to 5 ex-military with no takers. Here is what one of them said:” A war czar can’t supply the vision that’s missing at the White House. …What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region.”
Kritter I guess you have not read but exerpts from my post.
I said I want to Return to the Ronald Reagan version of Neoconservatism.
Smaller Government. Stronger Government. Less Intrusive government. Government that tolerates social and welfare services. Lower taxes to expand the economy and a feel good attitude about our nation. A movement that really does embrace most of the countries attitudes and beliefs.
You keep harping about Bush as if Reagan is running the country. I said Im not sure What Bush has given us. But it is not Neoconservativism. Yet in your overwhelming hatred of Bush you keep screaming Its the Neocons fault.
America wants Ronnie to be president again. America wants Neoconservatism back in all its glory. They do not want Liberalism. However with the defeat in 06 the liberals have turned it into a mandate. It was not a vote for liberals agenda it was a vote against Bush’s agenda.
America wants Neoconservatives back in power. True Neoconservatives that represnt the overwhelming majority of Americans.
I repeat. It is why Reagan won the White House in 2 landslide Elections. The people spoke.
- Neoconservatives incorporate about 75 percent of Americans? Where in the world did you get this idea?
- I never joined with Neocons in the first place. Again, where in the world did you get this idea?
Nobody I was responding to your claims that we hadn’t mucked it up, and that we don’t need to care what other countries think of us. Bush came under the influence of the same neoconservatives that were urging Clinton to invade Iraq and were disappointed that Bush 41 left Saddam in power. To tell the truth, we have no idea how Reagan would have reacted to 9/11, because he lived in a different era, that was more structured and more coherent. He didn’t understand terrorism, he understood the Cold War. His rhetoric was strong, but he was smart enough not to believe it himself. I was not a great Reagan supporter- he has his own controversies- not recognizing the AIDS epidemic, selling arms illegally to Iran and using the money again illegally to fight the Sandinistas, and creating a trickle-down system of economics that largely created economic inequality by concentrating wealth at the top. Even the system’s designer, David Stockman, later admitted that that was what it was supposed to do. But he was a larger than life personality and a true leaderwith a coherent vision, which is more than I can say about what is in power now. I just do not see him as a neocon.
- I never joined with Neocons in the first place. Again, where in the world did you get this idea?-
You renounce the libertarians who stood with conservatives against big government liberals when the Democrats were in power. But once the Republicans came to power, “conservatives� decided that they no longer needed libertarians, and thus abandoned any pretense of smaller goverment.
Why from your own words Nic.
You can’t stand the idea that some people might actually think that they, and not the government, ought to be the ones to decide what they smoke or what they put into their bodies,
Have you ever set back and listened to what you write Nic. Drugs, porn, gay rights, self absorption, ME, ME, ME. Its all about ME. Dont you get it. Who cares about anyone else. Its all about ME. About what I want. Who cares what the majority of Americans want.
Give us time we will put drugs in their hands too so they can become non productive drags on society with their booze, cigarettes and drugs. Oh yeah and lets have universal health care so we can drug it up, booze it up, sex it up and then let the government pay for all the ills we bring on ourselves.
Personal responsiblity?
ME. The libertarian Motto. ME, ME, ME.
Nobody- Ronnie is not coming back to this earth in our lifetime- the R’s need to get over it. The Teflon President has passed on to a better world, full of jelly beans, and is waiting for “Mommy” to join him there. If U persist in looking for his imitation U will end up with someone like W, and I don’t think our country could survive 4 more years of another chimp-in-chief.
The Teflon President is still around
Good Ole Bill Clinton. Isnt that exactly what everyone called him?
Actually, Nobody, I don’t do drugs or porn, nor am I gay, so the idea that it’s all about ME, ME, ME is . . . well, wrong.
It’s as if the idea that some Americans might stand up to defend the rights of other Americans was completely alien to you.
Given that you seem to believe that congress should legislate your moral values on everyone else, maybe this isn’t about ME, ME, ME but YOU, YOU, YOU.
Clinton was impeached and lost his law license for 5 years for lying about sex. How does that make him the teflon president- that was Reagan’s title because he got away with lying about Iran-Contra, while his underlings took the fall. I guess Clinton couldn’t get anyone to take the fall for his improprieties in the oval office, lol- but in the scheme of things, it just doesn’t seem all that important.
The impeachment was seen by the public as an overreaction and a witchhunt, and they reacted to it by voting out a few Republicans who had voted to impeach. Clinton left office with a 73% approval rating- the highest of any president in his second term.