I Present The Liberal Left!!
October 23, 2008 10:10am CST
Here is a quote from congressional leader Barney Franks, you know, the man who said a few years back that Freddie and Frannie were in no way in trouble! "I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money." -- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008 What I would like to know is his definition of rich! We already know that Barack Obama's definition of rich is people making over 200K per year and that is subject to change but just what is Mr. Franks definition? Why don't we start with Mr. Franks and the rest of his congressional cohorts in the senate and house and take about half of what they make a year? Think they might be happy about that? Let's remember one basic thing about economics and it applies to everyone from government right down to the family budget; you can't spend your way to fiscal responsibility! Anyone who has ever been in a financial crunch at home knows this only too well. You can try to get around the inevitable by using credit cards and personal loans but eventually it all unravels and you have to pay! Here is the article in which I found this quote and it puts into perspective just what type of economics we wolud have under Obama. The article calls it "Obamanomics" but I call it "Obama-moronomics"! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122471696933660407.html
• United States
23 Oct 08
Greetings Sir Rodney, Giving credit where credit is due, our own Sndcain hunted down and shared the following eye-openning article. I found it so potent, and so relevant that I'd like to share an excerpt. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921854-2,00.html Below is that excerpt: [i]"In follow-up press conferences Saturday morning, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker proclaimed that "the greatest risk beyond doubt" facing the economy is accelerating inflation. Not only do rapid price rises bring "direct pain and distortions," he said, they also prepare the way for a serious recession. Said he: "There is no way we can deal with the problems ... other than by placing restraint on people who individually would like more credit." Treasury Secretary G. William Miller similarly asserted that the Administration's first priority "is to demonstrate the political will to bring our budget under control, demonstrate to the American people and the world that we can do this." As this barrage of resolute rhetoric might indicate, inflation is not only a frightening economic problem but is rapidly becoming Carter's most dangerous political liability as well. Campaign audiences for the President's numerous rivals are showing at least as much interest in the economy lately as in Iran or Afghanistan. In Carter's own party, Ted Kennedy has made a demand for wage and price controls his major issue, and is apt to answer any question on any other subject with an attack on inflation. On the Republican side, Front Runner Ronald Reagan has been hammering increasingly harder on economic issues. Said he, campaigning in Illinois Friday night: "It's Government that causes inflation, and Government can make it go away by cutting out deficits and stopping the printing of money."[/i] If Barney Franks and his 'tax & spend' cronies don't want to listen to our shreiks about inflation and an out-of-control, credit reliant economic policy, then perhaps Barney will take heed from Jimmy Carter's disastrous administration. What most frustrates me is that the majority of knuckleheads that we have elected to Congress still seem to miss the connection between accelerated inflation - rapid rising prices - and the effect that foreign dependence on oil has on the cost of our goods, services, manufacturing, and transport industries. Hey Congress, - Drill here, drill now. - Stop sending 7 trillion per year overseas. - Follow the Reananesque lead of 25 other industrial nations by lowering the corporate tax rate - and get out of the way of the steam-engine of our economy, the small business entrepreneur. Then, we'll all see our economy settle back down to a state of calmer consistency. "There's a trend here. At least 25 developed nations have adopted Reaganite corporate income tax rate cuts since 2001. The U.S. is conspicuously not one of them.... ... In each of the countries that have cut corporate tax rates this year, the motivation has been the same -- to boost the nation's attractiveness as a location for international investment.... ...Tax receipts tend to fall below their optimum potential when corporate tax rates are so high that they lead to the creation of loopholes and the incentive to move income to countries with a lower tax rate. Ireland is the classic case of a nation on the "correct side" of this curve. It has a 12.5% corporate rate, nearly the lowest in the world, and yet collects 3.6% of GDP in corporate revenues, well above the international average http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118428874152665452.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep If anyone has ever wondered if there is a real cost of ignorance; the answer is yes. We're paying it everyday that our elected representatives dig us deeper and deeper into a pit of debt with their unbridled spending, and obstinate refusal to "Put America First". We currently have two Presidential candidates who are promising us the moon. Yet, only one is promising pervasive use of the VETO PEN. All things being equal, that one distinction should make us all think long and hard. Neither candidate is going to be able to fund their 'pie in the sky' promises. Given that reality, I'll take the one whose made those veto promises, anyday.
• United States
23 Oct 08
Ladyluna, Thanks for the response. This concept is something that liberal democrats have never been able to grasp. While it is admirable to want more advantages for the lower income earners the fact still remains that they do not create the jobs, pay the salaries or invest their money. To punish (and there is no better word)successful people and corporations just because they are successful is anti-productive to say the very least. When Americans stop believing the liberal drivel of how wrong it is for the rich to get incentives then this economy can start to recover. It absolutely will not recover if we force the people who create the jobs to pull up stakes and move to friendlier climes!