You have just got to watch this! SO good!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
remember
Andrew Breitbart...American Hero
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
An Epidemic Of Biden3 years ago
-
-
FOR ME - MORE BLOG LESS F B2 years ago
-
-
Kid's Creations2 months ago
-
Sixty-one Years Ago Today11 hours ago
-
His Name Was Charles4 years ago
-
-
-
Project Reconquista Commences10 years ago
-
Sorta Makes You Wanna Cry...9 years ago
-
-
-
-
Mr. AOW Has Gone Home3 years ago
-
-
This and That2 hours ago
-
-
Wow. I Lost Myself6 years ago
-
-
-
Can You Hear Us Now?1 week ago
-
VALENTINES DAY! :-)4 years ago
50 comments:
What would Reagan Do?
He'd mock the hell out of his enemies.
:)
Priceless.
I like the way he could mock in a classy way.
As far as the manure pile and the commie joke,some thing never change.
good ones both.
Odd that Saint Ronnie would mention "High Noon", a film that referenced standing up to McCarthyism when the coward Raygun willingly cooperated.
He caved like he did when he encouraged terrorists by running at the Beirut airport.
With all the extremist loons and morons calling themselves Republican today, Reagan would be kicked out of the party.
And by the way, he raised taxes more than any President in recent history.
The great communicator!
Duck,
He caved like he did when he encouraged terrorists by running at the Beirut airport.
On the heels of the Vietnam War, America didn't have the stomach for another conflict. And Reagan knew so, too.
Besides, few at the time understood the significance of what was happening in Beirut.
As for McCarthy, let's not forget VENONA.
Beamish, those are terrific, too...thanks.
Lisa, wasn't he fabulous?
Ducky, if we'd stood up for McCarthy, we might not be in the trouble we're in today.
I'll never forget the article in the LA Times I wish I'd kept and I've Googled to find......many of the children of film people admitting their parents were including Communist messages in film, etc. I see it now quite often; anti capitalism, anti Christianity.. It's shocking when you finally wake up and see what was going on to ease our pain.
Bd...I don't know a Republican, and many Dems, who still don't love Reagan and SO wish we had him now.
AOW.. no kidding.
Odd how the left is so ideologically in some dream world......everything MUST be perfect; there's no context... It's like soldiers knew when WWII was over so they judged accordingly? :-)
Yeah AOW, let's not forget Venona. How many who appeared before McCarthy were on the VENONA list? Zero.
Stretch your mind, Ducky; examples are important.
Read the chapter on McCarthy in one of Coulter's books and tell me where she's wrong. Oh, I forgot: you hate her so she must be wrong :-) DOn't let yourself hear any truth.
Reagan had the gift of communication. He wasn't perfect, but he left big shoes to fill for the current crop of republicans. It's early yet, but anything is better than 4 more years of Obama.
By the way, Ducky, I blame a lot of the political correctness crap of the leftwingers in America today on McCarthy.
Even until today, if anybody mentions someone has communist leanings, they are laughed at as if they're like that overbearing drunk, McCarthy, who had it right but went about it totally wrong.
It's one of the darkest times in American history not because of McCarthy but because of what prompted it; then, dark because the communists have continued to play us like fine violins..."Oh, my god, you sound like McCARTHY NOW"!! ya, well...
and, today, you leftwingers got your way: Kids march for communism with signs saying to overthrow capitalism....
Boy, will THEY be sorry if they get what they ask for, won't they? amazing.
Z, this is great. He was the best! So funny.
Ducky, McCarthy's dead, so what are you lefties calling hollywood's blacklisting of conservative actors today?
I'm surprised you brought this up, but then, you can't think past your nose, can you!
BD, if Reagan who was anti-communist and an American, was running today, he would be the only Republican candidate.
If JFK, who was anti-communist and an American, was running today, he couldn't get to first base in the Democrat party.
So now, which party is it which is full of extremist morons and loons, and completely lost it's way?
"Read the chapter on McCarthy in one of Coulter's books"...
LOL....ducks would rather spout the quaran passages then pick up a Coulter book....without gloves.
Which means Coulters books must and should be read so long a ducks hates her.
Pris, SUCH a good point about HOllywood leftists excluding those who don't think like they do...
I remember being at a gathering of conservatives in Hollywood and everyone was introducing themselves and telling a story if they wanted to and one young actress started by saying "I can't quite wrap my brain around opening up here...I feel like those doors are going to open and news people will be here with photographers" She was that scared.
excellent point about JFK, too. Actually, I think he'd have been a Republican today :-)
Major, you're right. That 'kill the messenger' thing leftists have might just kill their learning something...
sadly, it could kill the country.
Major, did you say you lived in Montana?
Yes...Mz. Z....part time.
Really? You guys are referencing Coulter books. OMG!
What do yo think of Reagan here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsHXJr8tqP0
Spin that! Lol!
Ducky,
Does your calling Reagan a coward imply that you would respect him more if he had been more hawkish?
bftm
Bd....you've been told "COULTER=BAD" that's YOUR problem.
She gives information the leftwingies don't like but she's right. Absolutely...I'll stand by what she said in her book regarding McCarthyism ANY day. You'd be very surprised if your eyes were finally opened from thinking entitlements are good in every way ...
as for Reagan; you do understand that he was for FREEDOM and for the Polish to get out from oppression and into workers groups was good then and there at that time, right? (context)
I never realized what a prophet he was; he talked about how losing freedom would be the end of any people... he'd flip if he saw how our left is making Americans beholden and taking freedoms away, wouldn't he.
He was amazing. thanks for that video.
This is the BESTINAMERICA NOT FEMA
Z, what a great story. This is the American spirit at it's best.
And by the way, he raised taxes more than any President in recent history.
Actually, he'd get more love from the left if he had raised taxes.
Reagan's legacy is that he lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%, and closed many loopholes in the tax code.
The net effect is that economic growth reduced the tax burden on all Americans as the federal government's federal revenue share of GDP shrank in comparison.
Reagan grew the size of the private sector instead of the size of government.
Supply side economics 101.
Solzhenitsyn supported unions as one antidote for Communism.
And, of course, when Reagan gave that speech, unions were not doing what they are doing today: strong-arming the government.
As for VENONA, I think that it did prove that the Red Threat was real.
McCarthy has been much maligned.
Ann Coulter too.
That book that Z mentioned is well footnoted.
We should also remember Reagan's Screen Guild connections when we hear his support unions.
Bd said, "And by the way, he raised taxes more than any President in recent history."
Bd continues to spout the Party line, even though he does not bother to check either his facts or his knowledge of proceedures.
He heard it somewhere, chose not to check it out but to simply adopt it because it fit his agenda and spews it forth, believing that because he says it it is true.
What a clone!
Clown!
Great input here, you guys; thanks a lot.
Yeah, 'great input;' If you like lies!
McCarthy has been much maligned. Ann Coulter too.
Reagan's legacy is that he lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%, and closed many loopholes in the tax code.
The net effect is that economic growth reduced the tax burden on all Americans as the federal government's federal revenue share of GDP shrank in comparison.
Reagan grew the size of the private sector instead of the size of government.
You guys are too much in your alternate reality, Lol!
Bd, some day you'll learn and you'll be SO humiliated that you wrote this here. NO wonder you have no blog and are acting anonymously. REAlly!
remind me WHY ARE YOU HERE?
You guys are too much in your alternate reality, Lol!
Of course. The alternate to your reality is the truth.
For all your mindless squawking, it's doubtful you could sell a "Obama should raise taxes to improve the economy like Reagan did" meme to your own comrades, much less those who've never smoked crack.
McCarthy has been much maligned.
Ann Coulter too.
It's easy to find historians facepalming to Coulter's screed, but when you lose Wm. F. Buckley...
Coulter goes in the opposite direction, sounding sometimes like Roy Cohn, whose defenses of McCarthy were in the language of biblical inerrancy: "If he said it (did it), it was the right thing to say (to do)." But as we have seen, Coulter is much, much more extreme in her judgments than McCarthy ever was, though from one particular passage of McCarthy she takes explicit encouragement, ending up on the road to Pinch (Sulzberger)-as-traitor.
...and David Horowitz...
It is distressing when someone you admire gives credibility to liberal attacks. But that, unfortunately, is what this book has done.
...maybe it's time to give it up.
For all your mindless squawking, it's doubtful you could sell a "Obama should raise taxes to improve the economy like Reagan did" meme to your own comrades, much less those who've never smoked crack.
From the Lefty rag, Forbes,
Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984.
Reagan grew the size of the private sector instead of the size of government.
From another Lib hotbed, The Mises Institute
In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income"...So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
The net effect is that economic growth reduced the tax burden on all Americans as the federal government's federal revenue share of GDP shrank in comparison.
Also from Mises,
If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.
Wow! .4% shrinkage. Awesome. BTW, the tax burden on all Americans is lower now than under Reagan.
He tripled the national debt, too. The Myth is so much better than reality, huh.
Craig,
I remember all the noise the left made about the public debt rising to 3% of GDP under Reagan.
Obama has presided over the public debt rising to an unsustainable 90% of GDP.
In fact, Obama has raised the public debt in 2 years more than Presidents Washington through Reagan did over the course of 200 years.
Reagan was a penny-pincher by comparison.
I remember all the noise the left made about the public debt rising to 3% of GDP under Reagan.
beamish, I'm not sure what you are talking about. These graphs tell a different story. US Federal Debt As Percent GDP
In fact, Obama has raised the public debt in 2 years more than Presidents Washington through Reagan did over the course of 200 years.
I won't defend Obama on this. But, the structural causes of the huge deficits were in place long before he became Pres. The wars, tax cuts and high unemployment (loss of tax revenue) are what's driving deficits. Another chart.
Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts, wimped out on the Stimulus (it did Increase the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.6 million to 4.6 million. Should've been bigger) and continues the insane wars. Now Libya, oy.
I know you think tax cuts, deregulation and austerity will fix everything but there is no empirical evidence to support it working, ever. Effective tax rates are at their lowest in 60 years. In fact, the record shows high marginal tax rates DO NOT hamper economic growth. One more chart.
Before anyone accuses me of Bush bashing, I put just as much blame on Clinton (signing Gramm/Leach/Bliley) for the economic collapse.
P.s. Are you still clinging to The Myth?
beamish, I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Exactly.
In fact, the record shows high marginal tax rates DO NOT hamper economic growth.
Actually, the record shows you can raise taxes as high as you want and you'll never get more than 20% of the GDP.
(The annual GDP of course can rise and fall, but taxation will only claim around 20% of it at the most)
Noticeably (and quite likely purposefully) missing from your citations is a graph of economic growth (rise in GDP) when top marginal tax rates are lowered.
You know, getting 20% of a $2.5 Trillion GDP in federal revenues with a 70% top marginal tax rate in 1980 vs. getting 20% of a $6 Trillion GDP with a 28% top marginal tax rates in 1988.
$500 Billion in tax revenue with high taxes on a smaller economy vs. $1.2 Trillion in tax revenue with lower taxes on a larger economy.
I'm not "buying into" any "myths." I am merely not afflicted with the math illiteracy that leftist suffer from.
Nicely said, thanks for that Z. I don't know much about him, way to young during his time. I see why good, decent Americans liked him so much though.
Actually, the record shows you can raise taxes as high as you want and you'll never get more than 20% of the GDP.
It was 20.6% in Clinton's last year.
You know, getting 20% of a $2.5 Trillion GDP in federal revenues with a 70% top marginal tax rate in 1980 vs. getting 20% of a $6 Trillion GDP with a 28% top marginal tax rates in 1988.
GDP in 1980 was closer to $2.8T. !988 was $5.1T. For most of Reagan's term the top marginal rate was 50%. It dropped to 38.5% in 1986 and didn't drop to 28% until 1988, Reagan's last 13 months in office. You ignore the fact that Reagan nearly doubled the Payroll Tax, raised corporate and energy taxes and closed many tax loopholes in the 1986 tax restructuring. Even with his tax increases, tax revenue in inflation adjusted numbers was weak.
Tax Revenue in 1960: $681 B - 91% increase
Tax Revenue in 1970: $1,084 B - 59% increase
Tax Revenue in 1980: $1,368 B - 26% increase
Tax Revenue in 1990: $1,722 B - 26% increase
Tax Revenue in 2000: $2,564 B - 49% increase
Tax Revenue in 2010: $2,163 B - 16% DECREASE
26% for the Reagan years. Check out the Bush II years. Do you still think tax cuts increase revenue? Tax revenue as a % of GDP is now at 14.9%, thanks to Bush tax cuts.
How would the Repub. party, today, react to going back to the Reagan tax rates of 1983? 50% top rate. That's the reality. The top rate was 28% for only 13 months out of 8 years. The Myth did it for 8 out of 8 years. You bought the myth.
GDP in 1980 was closer to $2.8T. !988 was $5.1T. For most of Reagan's term the top marginal rate was 50%. It dropped to 38.5% in 1986 and didn't drop to 28% until 1988, Reagan's last 13 months in office.
And thusly, you concede that tax cuts under Reagan did not decrease federal revenues, which continued to rise.
You ignore the fact that Reagan nearly doubled the Payroll Tax, raised corporate and energy taxes and closed many tax loopholes in the 1986 tax restructuring. Even with his tax increases, tax revenue in inflation adjusted numbers was weak.
Yet increased by 26%, if you believe your own words.
26% for the Reagan years. Check out the Bush II years. Do you still think tax cuts increase revenue? Tax revenue as a % of GDP is now at 14.9%, thanks to Bush tax cuts.
And federal spending as a % of GDP is now at over 40%, thanks to Obama deficit spending.
Still noticeably (and quite likely purposefully) missing from your "argument," Craig, is a chart demonstrating that increased government spending causes the economy to grow and the GDP to go up.
Why is it that tax cuts cause the economy to grow, and increased government spending causes the economy to shrink?
Or rather, why is it that leftists can't grasp math?
How would the Repub. party, today, react to going back to the Reagan tax rates of 1983?
Can we have the federal budget of 1983 as well?
This is SO out of my safer field of knowledge, but it seems to me that lowering taxes helps companies grow and then employers hire more people, thereby creating a larger field of people who are now paying taxes and not taking unemployment, etc., from the federal government....
more revenue, less spending... win/win?
or??
more revenue, less spending... win/win?
Depends on your definition of win / win.
Some leftists think the 95% top marginal tax rate and food rationing cards under FDR was good for the economy.
And thusly, you concede that tax cuts under Reagan did not decrease federal revenues, which continued to rise.
My point was, Reagan wasn't the tax cutter the Right wants to believe he was. Yes, he cut marginal income taxes but he raised payroll taxes, gas tax, taxed SS benefits, required self employed to pay full payroll tax, eliminated deductions on credit card debt, etc. We can argue whether those were good or bad but you can't argue they weren't tax hikes.
Most of those tax hikes hit the middle and lower class harder, as a % of income, than the upper class. It started the redistribution of wealth upward. So, yeah, revenue grew but not enough to cover Reagan's expansion of govt. spending. It's really hard to not grow gdp and revenue. Population growth, increase in productivity and inflation have lead to a steady, almost exponential, growth in gdp which makes W's reign so stunningly awful.
And federal spending as a % of GDP is now at over 40%, thanks to Obama deficit spending.
The lasted figure available is for 2010. 39.97%. 1983-36.31%. 2008-36.94. Not that much higher than Reagan and Bush considering the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Still noticeably (and quite likely purposefully) missing from your "argument," Craig, is a chart demonstrating that increased government spending causes the economy to grow and the GDP to go up.
I have never advocated govt. spending to grow the economy. But, there are times, like now, when consumption is down, business is unable or unwilling to inject capital into the economy (banks and corps. are currently sitting on $2T in liquid assets), govt. is the employer of last resort. Supply isn't the problem, demand is.
Since govt. spending is part of gdp, by definition it causes gdp to go up. I don't have a graph but from 1940 to 45, debt to gdp was 124% and the gdp more than doubled.
Why is it that tax cuts cause the economy to grow, and increased government spending causes the economy to shrink?
Do you have any evidence for this?
Can we have the federal budget of 1983 as well?
Why would that make any difference?
This is SO out of my safer field of knowledge, but it seems to me that lowering taxes helps companies grow and then employers hire more people, thereby creating a larger field of people who are now paying taxes and not taking unemployment, etc., from the federal government....
Z, The long answer would take too long. Tax rates are only part of the equation. The short answer is, we have empirical evidence that lowering taxes don't necessarily lead to more jobs. If it did, the Bush tax cuts would have lead to a booming economy. beamish will point to the mid aughts, when there was economic growth. It was driven largely by over inflated real estate prices. People pulling equity out and it did spur activity.
Job creation was dismal. The unemployment rate doesn't reflect real joblessness because of the way it's counted. Someone just entering the job market and can't find a job isn't counted because they were never on the unemployment rolls. Real unemployment is closer to 16% than 9.1% now. Unemployment rose under Bush. My point is, tax cuts didn't deliver as promised.
Clinton raised taxes 3% on the top 2% and the Right predicted doom. Wrong.
There is no magic tax rate, it depends on what's happening with the economy. Start a couple wars, you need to raise revenue. I can't find a time in the history of the world when taxes were cut at a time of war. Just sayin'.
When the top marginal tax rate was 91% like under Ike or 70% under Kennedy, it was only the income that fell in that bracket that was taxed at that rate. If the bracket started at $100K and you made $110K, only $10K would be taxed at that rate. You can bet that few people actually paid that rate, they sheltered it. If you were a business owner, the easiest way was to invest that money back in the business. A capital investment, a new hire or employee bonus. The money was put back into the economy.
Most of the money from tax cuts has not been reinvested in America. It chases cheap labor overseas, synthetic derivatives like collateralized debt obligations which produce nothing, speculated on commodities or are hoarded. The top 10% hold 80%-90% of stocks and bonds. The average time a stock is held is 40 seconds. It's all about the quick score.
Anyway, there's no evidence that tax cuts necessarily lead to economic growth.
Chuck, I don't think ANYBODY thinks lower tax rates are ALL we need.
Why is it that tax cuts cause the economy to grow, and increased government spending causes the economy to shrink?
Do you have any evidence for this?
Yes.
Can we have the federal budget of 1983 as well?
Why would that make any difference?
It's a smaller budget. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan's $808 Billion 1983 budget is $1.7 Trillion in 2010 dollars.
Post a Comment