Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

Paradigm

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Wed May 14, 2014, 09:51 AM
Number of posts: 7,105

Journal Archives

When President Bush cut taxes in 2003 it increased revenue and created millions

of jobs. Median household wealth increased and federal revenue saw a massive increase as well. Why can't 0 and the libs in congress understand this simple fact? No, raising taxes will have the same results. Increasing government will save money and reduce the deficit. One would hope he could learn from history. Guess not.

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue

By The Washington Times Wednesday, February 3, 2010

A favorite liberal narrative is that President George W. Bush squandered the Clinton-era budget surpluses and piled up deficits with expensive wars and tax cuts for the rich. Candidate Barack Obama used this tale to great effect, and President Obama tells it still.

The truth is that Mr. Bush’s deficits were the product of spending, not tax cuts. In fact, Mr. Obama could learn an important lesson for his own economic plan by studying Mr. Bush’s two very different attempts at tax-cutting.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”



Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/#ixzz37C2kzIWO

I don't care what gun control laws are passed, I'll not relinquish my right of self protection.

The last paragraph says it all. Nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates.

www.bostonmagazine.com

Harvard Publication On Gun Laws Resurfaces As Talks About Firearms Continue
A study comparing international gun laws shows that getting rid of firearms might not be the solution to reducing overall violence.

By Steve Annear | Boston Daily | August 30, 2013 4:17 pm

As Boston—and the country as a whole—looks for ways to reduce gun-related deaths and violence, a study from 2007 published in a Harvard University journal is suddenly regaining increased attention for its claims that more control over firearms doesn’t necessarily mean their will be a dip in serious crimes.

In an independent research paper titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?,” first published in Harvard’s Journal of Public Law and Policy, Don B. Kates, a criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, Ph.D., a Canadian criminologist and professor at Simon Fraser University, examined the correlation between gun laws and death rates. While not new, as gun debates nationwide heat up, the paper has resurfaced in recent days, specifically with firearm advocates.“International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative,” the researchers wrote in their introduction of their findings.

In the 46-page study, which can be read in its entirety here, Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don’t mean there is less crime. As an example, when looking at “intentional deaths,” or murder, on an international scope, the U.S. falls behind Russia, Estonia, and four other countries, ranking it seventh. More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison. “There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, is, in fact, false and is substantially so,” the authors point out, based on their research.

Kates and Mauser clarify that they are not suggesting that gun control causes nations to have higher murder rates, rather, they “observed correlations that nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow guns.”

Rich Liberals are the Biggest Global Warming Hypocrites

We've known for some time that as Democrats realize that global warming isn't happening like they were told, they become stronger in their global warming beliefs. It's a phenomenon I've often heard called the "acceptance denial" effect. Even when their global warming leader does things which would seem opposite of what one who believes in global warming would do, they will fabricate excuses for his activity so they can continue to "deny the acceptance" of the facts and continue with their preexisting political biases to make those on the left more likely to accept the big global warming moneymakers telling them to do as I say, not as I do.

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/sea-level-rising-gore-buys-multi-million-dollar-oceanfront-mansion

Sea Level Rising? Gore Buys Multi-Million Dollar Oceanfront Mansion

James M. Taylor

April 30, 2010

One of the benefits of federalism is citizens can vote with their feet in choosing a state whose governance matches their world view. One of the benefits for Al Gore earning countless millions of dollars selling global warming alarm is Gore’s ability to buy property anywhere, and vote on what is and isn’t an imminent environmental crisis based on his real estate selection.

Al Gore may tell gullible followers that rising sea level threatens to swamp global coastlines, but his recent purchase of an $8 million oceanfront mansion in tony Montecito, California, tells another story altogether. Prudent property investors do not purchase multi-million dollar oceanfront mansions if they truly expect them to be underwater soon.

But Gore’s choice of oceanfront property is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. According to the Montecito Journal, Gore’s new mansion sprawls over 1.5 acres (“we all need to reduce our ecological footprint”); contains fountains, a spa, and a swimming pool (even though Southern California is water starved, and alarmists tell us global warming will cause more severe drought and water restrictions); and contains six – count them, six – fireplaces (because burning carbon-intensive wood in only five fire places at once simply won’t do when entertaining Hollywood friends).

When Enron executives touted their climate-friendly energy production while simultaneously bailing out of the company on golden parachutes, people should have taken notice. When Al Gore tells Americans we must stave off climate catastrophe by purchasing renewable power and carbon offset credits from companies he owns, and at the same time Gore purchases an oceanfront mansion with over-the-top water usage and half a dozen fireplaces, people should again take notice.

We obviously need more illegal immigrants. $113,000,000,000 a year is peanuts.

China will loan us the money to give to additional illegals. What could anyone possibly see what's wrong with this line of thinking? Other than it makes the U.S. Weaker. That's the goal for some, right??

www.fairus.org

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers (2010)

Executive Summary
This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

Key Findings
Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.

The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality
Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.

I've read posts lately how the SCOTUS decision on Hobby Lobby

would give future democratic politicians, and newly appointed Supreme Court members, freedom to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment. Let's assume that is the case for a moment.

If the reinterpretation is exactly the same as the SC decision on HL, then that would simply mean my employer would not be required to provide me with all the free guns I desire for my lifestyle choices and my desire to own more weapons. I could still own all the guns I like, I would just have to purchase them myself.

No big deal, really.

U.S. Now the biggest oil producing country. Thanks, Obama for

contributing to global warming. I'm sure Al Carbon Credits Gore loves it. I didn't hear much about this from the mainstream liberal media.

www.bloomberg.com

U.S. Seen as Biggest Oil Producer After Overtaking Saudi Arabia
By Grant Smith Jul 4, 2014 11:56 AM ET

Photographer: Ken James/Bloomberg
Oil pumps stand at the Chevron Corp. Kern River oil field in Bakersfield, California.

The U.S. will remain the world’s biggest oil producer this year after overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia as extraction of energy from shale rock spurs the nation’s economic recovery, Bank of America Corp. said.

U.S. production of crude oil, along with liquids separated from natural gas, surpassed all other countries this year with daily output exceeding 11 million barrels in the first quarter, the bank said in a report today. The country became the world’s largest natural gas producer in 2010. The International Energy Agency said in June that the U.S. was the biggest producer of oil and natural gas liquids.

One of the biggest killers this holiday weekend. I recommend owners lock

them up so they can't be mis-used, or monitor them continuously.

Be safe out there this weekend.

www.cpsc.gov

A Call to Action: Parents and Children Need to ‘Pool Safely’ in Pools and Spas over the July 4th Holiday
JULY 02, 2013 Release Number: 12-232

26 children drown in pools and spas during the week of July 4th, on average

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In anticipation of the thousands of gatherings around public and private pools over the Independence Day holiday, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is reminding parents and children alike of the steps they should take to stay safe when spending time in the water.

The July 4th holiday has traditionally seen an increase in the number of pool and spa drownings, compared to an average week over the rest of the summer. According to data compiled from media reports by USA Swimming, during the last three years over the week of July 4th an average of 26 children drowned in pools and spas. In 2012, 30 pool or spa-related drownings were reported involving children younger than 15 over the week of the July 4 holiday (June 30 through July 6); in 2011, there were 25 drownings reported; and in 2010, 24 drownings for the same age range.

Over $18,000,000,000 per year spent on immigrant enforcement alone.

Why are some encouraging tens of thousands more be bussed in and set free to enjoy the US government give-away programs. I think it's nothing more than for political reasons.

Not to worry, though. As the 18 billion grows and grows to who knows what, we can just borrow more and more from China to pay for it. Problem solved.

I honestly believe some people want to see the US weakened as a nation, and they are for unlimited immigration because it makes the US one step weaker.

www.usatoday.com

Obama administration spent $18B on immigration enforcement
AP 7:36 p.m. EST January 7, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration spent more money on immigration enforcement in the last fiscal year than all other federal law enforcement agencies combined, according to a report on the government's enforcement efforts from a Washington think tank.

The report on Monday from the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan group focused on global immigration issues, said in the 2012 budget year that ended in September the government spent about $18 billion on immigration enforcement programs run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the US-Visit program, and Customs and Border Protection, which includes the Border Patrol. Immigration enforcement topped the combined budgets of the FBI; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Secret Service by about $3.6 billion dollars, the report's authors said.

Why the hell is this so difficult to grasp. If a private company

offers a health plan and you accept it to get a job there, why bitch and complain when you want more than what their plan offers? If you want more coverage, go buy it or go work somewhere else that offers what you want.

I just don't understand this entitlement concept.

I want my company's health plan to offer zero dollars co-pay, but that's not an option. If that's what I want, I have to pay more. I understand that, why don't other people get that?

If this is the leader of the global warming cult, it's no wonder there are deniers and skeptics.

It's not enough for the global warming lead spokesman to tell all the peons how they need to live third world lives. Until they all practiced what they preach to us, forget it.

Is Al Gore A Fossil-Fuel Industry Mole?

www.forbes.com

Did you hear the joke about the father of four telling everybody that overpopulation is killing the planet? Well, it’s not a joke, it’s Al Gore. Just when we thought we could go more than a month or two without new evidence of Al saying one thing and doing another, the father of four is taking hypocrisy to a new low, hectoring people about their need to make smarter birth choices to save the planet.

At some point in time we have to wonder whether Al is really this buffoonish, or whether he is a paid mole of the fossil fuel industry, cleverly taking on the role of Most Visible Global Warming Opponent only to purposefully sabotage the green agenda by offending absolutely everybody with his appalling hypocrisy.

Scene One: Here is Al Gore delivering the unwelcome news that we all need to tighten our belts and live more frugal lives, all while he is living in his enormous Tennessee mansion, sucking up more electricity in a single month than most of his Nashville neighbors use in an entire year.

Scene Two: Here is Al Gore flying a private jet from Nashville to Washington, D.C., as he prepares to badger Congress with a fire-and-brimstone sermon about fossil fuels ushering in a planetary catastrophe. Here is Al Gore flying a private jet again to a public speaking appearance in San Francisco. If greenhouse gas emissions are such a problem, why didn’t Al save emissions by flying commercial first class? We know it’s not for security concerns – the entire massage industry can testify that Al is the security issue to be feared rather than protected.

Scene Three: Here is Al Gore landing at Reagan National Airport. The Metro light rail system can take Al in a nearly emissions-free trip straight from the airport to the U.S. Capitol Building. But Al makes nary a move in the direction of the Metro stop. Shame on you, Al, you must be heading for a taxi cab. But wait, he’s walking away from the taxi stand, also. Will Al lead by perfect example and walk or bike to the Capitol Building? Ugh, there he goes, getting into a limousine, making the wasteful emissions of a private taxi cab seem absolutely eco-friendly in comparison to his limo.

Scene Four: Al is pestering us again about how we have to tighten our belts or else the global sea level will rise dramatically and turn our coastal cities into Waterworld. Manhattan will soon be underwater and unrecognizable, Al promises. At the same time, the energy-guzzling Tennessee mansion is apparently not good enough for Al. There is Al buying yet another energy-guzzling multi-million dollar mansion, this time overlooking the Pacific Ocean along the Santa Barbara coast. What happened to all that sea level rise, Al?


Scene Five: Now we have the richly childed Al Gore telling us that the way to reduce global warming pollution is to reduce family size. “One of the things we could do … to put out less of this pollution to stabilize the population,” said Al last week in a New York speech. “You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of children.”
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »