This is the Age of Censorship!

[PoliticalChic]

It is remarkable how successful the media has been in closing down debate. Not merely marginalizing opposing voices, but actually shhhhushing those questions whose answers might prove....embarrassing.
Even momentous inquiries of an eschatological nature! Shhhhh!


1. Imagine if one were so obstrusive as to critique Obama as a Marxist, or a socialist, or a 'fellow traveler.' Even if a quotation from Obama himself were provided ( "...spreading the wealth..." "...you didn't build that..."), there would be instant shock, rejection, derision, and scoffing in disbelief.
One would be discredited...even if one were to speak of policies such as socialized medicine, that definitively Marxist program, one roundly applauded by Bolsheviks, progressives, statists, socialists, and fellow travelers.

2. What has been accomplished in our modern era is denial of reality. Not bad enough that freedom loving, individualistic, self-reliant Americans have elected a President who could accurately be identified with the terms Marxist, or socialist, or statist....but even worse, "one cannot even broach the subject without triggering an avalanche of opprobrium."
West, "American Betrayal," p.25.

3. "Even beyond the question of how Americans elected a man incubated in a radical comfort zone peopled by Stalinists, Maoists, card-carrying Communists, socialists, and postmodern revolutionaries unhelpfully obscured as "Alinskyites," and who first ran for elected office as both a Democrat and socialist (New Party) "fusion" candidate, how did this topic of crucial public interest become a conversation ender, something to wave off, frantically, like a bad smell?" Ibid.






a. " The assertion that Barack Obama is a socialist became a hallmark of the 2008 presidential campaign... “When you spread the wealth around,” Obama had said, “it’s good for everybody.” That, McCain insisted, sounded “a lot like socialism,” as did Obama’s proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy and high earners for the explicit purpose of taking better care of the lower and middle classes with that redistributed money. Republicans believed they had hit a rhetorical mother lode with this line of argument in 2008, but their efforts to make hay of Obama’s putative socialism proved unedifying, if not outright comic."
« What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama? Commentary Magazine






4. Who let America down?
Was it the Democrats, the party owned lock-stock-and barrel by the far Left, the socialists, the Marxists?
Was it the American public, the folks who seemed unable to get excited about anything, the folks who epitomized George Santayana's warnings?

No, it was the Right...the so-called conservative pundits who didn't scream, or make much of a fuss about the attitudes and associations of the Marxist candidate.

a. In October of 2008, on Fox, Charles Krauthammer had his chance....and, instead, pooh-poohed the socialism:

" Since the word "socialism" has reared its ugly head, let's dispose of it..... Socialism actually is when the government takes over means of production, or Lenin called the commanding heights of the economy.... Now, obviously what Obama is talking about is what we have had for a long time, progressive taxation. Now, he wants to raise the marginal income tax rate from about 36 percent today to about 39.5. It is a little higher because he wants to eliminate a lot of deductions that the other income people have, so perhaps it's in the 40's."
'Special Report' Panel Discuses Whether Obama's Tax Plan Is Socialism in Disguise; Whatever Happened to Bipartisanship? | Fox News



b. There seems to be fear from those who should give the story the prominence it deserves, and the reason was ably described by Andrew C. McCarthy as ..."fog from the vaporous arsenal to which Alinskyites resort when they know that clarity would betray their radicalism and antagonize the public."
Read more at National Review?s Andrew McCarthy Has a Sweet Jihad For You



So....American could have been a champ, but our big brothers sold us out. They had a chance to lay it all out....to make it a fight....but played word games instead.




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_GGVDVrIcM]On The Waterfront-The most Famous scene with that quote-I Could Have Been A Contender.flv - YouTube[/ame]




America got a one way ticket to palookaville.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Censorship is necessary to maintain order, for example this very website & all social media, if the sheeple are allowed to continue to have a voice for much longer, the wealthy such as I will be ruined.
Just imagine for a moment if everyone would speak out against unfairness and unjust things happening to them, the very fabric of our establishment will soon crumble away ............ topics about gun ownership should only list gun punishments for possession, those posts that spin gun ownership into something positive must be deleted.
The confiscation of children and being placed in a NAMbLA foster home must be kept quit, as you can see social media can be even more dangerous than a gun.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Nice tirade.
Unfortunately it is all based on a false premise.
No one has any difficulty at all finding discussions about the failings of Barack Obama. (did you mean intrusive or abusive? I don't know what you mean by obstrusive?)

The charge of socialist has be levied early and often. The fact that not many people arrived at the same conclusion as you have or arrived at the conclusion with the same level of certainty that you have, doesn't seem to be an indictment of "everyone else" to me.

You have looked at the evidence and you have decided on a verdict. That's your right (and I would argue your responsibility as a voter). But I don't think the fact that others viewed the evidence and arrived at a different verdict necessarily means that everyone else is wrong and you are right.

And I don't think the fact that others reached a different conclusiuon means your point of view never got a fair hearing.

 

[Bfgrn]

You're paranoid and delusional PC...and wrong as usual...

PC: "One would be discredited...even if one were to speak of policies such as socialized medicine, that definitively Marxist program, one roundly applauded by Bolsheviks, progressives, statists, socialists, and fellow travelers."

Totally false PC. 'centrally planned economies' do not subscribe to social programs or what is called the welfare state.

The Forgotten Churchill

The man who stared down Hitler also helped create the modern welfare state

In 1908, when Asquith became prime minister, there were almost no models of state welfare anywhere on earth. The exception was Bismarck’s Prussia, which to the dismay of German Social Democrats had instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

Welfare, what is more, had an imperial dimension. The Boer War had been won with a volunteer army, and the nation had been shocked to hear of the high incidence of ill health among recruits. An empire needs troops. There was nothing socialist about state welfare, and socialists were right to fear the specter of a national health service. They continued to fear it, and when years later the Beveridge report appeared, in December 1942, it proved a bestseller but was roundly condemned in a letter by Beatrice Webb, an old Fabian, as a disastrous idea—though fortunately, as she added, very unlikely to be acted on. In the event, Labour was the last of the three British parties to accept a National Health Service, and William Beveridge, whom I knew as a neighbor in his last years, was endlessly bitter about the derision that Labour leaders had once heaped on his ideas.

The forgotten truth about health provision is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies. Nobody doubts that California is capitalistic, and its public debt is notorious; the People’s Republic of China, by contrast, is a major creditor in international finance. When the two Germanies united after 1990, the social provision of the capitalist West was more than twice that of the socialist East, and the cost of unification to West Germany proved vast. Talk of socialized medicine was always misleading if socialized implies socialist, and the very word probably guarantees that confusion. The British National Health Service of 1948, like the Canadian version that followed it 20 years later, always allowed for a flourishing private sector—a sector that has tended to grow with the years. It neither banned private medical care nor discouraged it. Only a competitive economy, what is more, is likely to generate a tax base big enough to maintain public hospitals, pensions, and schools. In short, a free economy needs state welfare, and state welfare needs a free economy.

more

 

[eagle1462010]

The reason the left is winning, item 4, is because we aren't fighting fire with fire. We need TRUE CONSERVATIVES in office and not a bunch of LAME WINDBAG RHINO'S who refuse to stand up for the beliefs of the Conservatives in this nation.

We are playing by the Rules set by the Libs in Politics, so they are winning. On top of that, the Libs are winning huge in minority group areas.

Why? CLASS WARFARE................

It's their main strategy, and the uniformed public swallow it HOOK, LINE AND SINKER.

Latino voter vote almost 70% Dem, because they always say Amnesty, Amnesty, Amnesty. They figure more illegals get Citizenship by voting Dems. The current bill is about VOTES, NOT THAT THEY CARE ABOUT ILLEGALS. It will guarantee them about 8 MILLION MORE VOTERS in elections, if not even more.
Republicans could lose a key voting state like Texas, via this strategy. Which would almost seal up Presidential Elections for them as California, New York, Florida, and Texas would basically give the Dems enough electoral votes to win the day for a very long time.

Dems get most of the black votes by playing the Race Card all the time. When you tell a lie enough times it eventually becomes the Truth to the Uniformed Public. They have been calling Republicans Racist for so long, that it sticks in the minds with the voters, even though it's a LOAD OF BS,

Now to the poor vote. Dems offer FREE CHIT all the time, and say the Republicans are going to take their money away as they live off the dole of Public Assistance. Thus getting their votes so they can KEEP GETTING HAND OUTS and Not HAND UPS.

Dems want BIGGER GOVERNMENT ALWAYS, and MORE TAXATION ALWAYS. They play the Corporate is EVIL CARDS and PLAY THE CLASS ENVY CARD all the time. Yet when they Raise these taxes and Corps RAISE PRICES and CUT EMPLOYEES, the VOTING public is too STUPID to understand they are paying more for EVERYTHING because Corps pass on costs to the public. This same area goes into the CONTINUED INSANE DEBT, which is DESTROYING THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR. When Obama leaves office we will be at OVER 20 TRILLION IN DEBT.

This is INSANITY. We are FINANCIALLY DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY, and STILL THE DEMS WANT MORE GOVERNMENT.

THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENSIONS. The Dems are PAVING THE HELL OUT OF THE ROADS.

End Result is we are all screwed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In reference to PC: "You have looked at the evidence and you have decided on a verdict. That's your right (and I would argue your responsibility as a voter). But I don't think the fact that others viewed the evidence and arrived at a different verdict necessarily means that everyone else is wrong and you are right."

Of course it does.

 

[eagle1462010]

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

From the Treasury department. Interest on the debt alone.

252 BILLION THIS YEAR.
359 BILLION LAST YEAR.
454 BILLION IN 2011

The United States cannot SUSTAIN THE CYCLE OF DEBT. Yet we are pushing the Gas pedal on Debt when we should be HITTING THE BRAKES.

Again, INSANITY.

 

[Bfgrn]

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

From the Treasury department. Interest on the debt alone.

252 BILLION THIS YEAR.
359 BILLION LAST YEAR.
454 BILLION IN 2011

The United States cannot SUSTAIN THE CYCLE OF DEBT. Yet we are pushing the Gas pedal on Debt when we should be HITTING THE BRAKES.

Again, INSANITY.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

 

[eagle1462010]

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

From the Treasury department. Interest on the debt alone.

252 BILLION THIS YEAR.
359 BILLION LAST YEAR.
454 BILLION IN 2011

The United States cannot SUSTAIN THE CYCLE OF DEBT. Yet we are pushing the Gas pedal on Debt when we should be HITTING THE BRAKES.

Again, INSANITY.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

90'S...........Clinton...........

Backed into a corner via ACTUAL GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWNS, signed KEY LEGISLATION ACTS pushed for by the Republicans, INCLUDING WELFARE REFORM and MASSIVE CUTS TO THE MILITARY nearly got us to a BALANCED BUDGET.

When it worked the LEFT SCREAMED LOOK WHAT CLINTON DID...............

Yet he was FORCED TO DO SO.

Prescription drug bill. Passed by Bush. Then the left SCREAMED LOOK AT THE BIG SPENDER BUSH, yet their PROPOSED BILL was estimated at DOUBLE THE COST AT THE TIME. 800 BILLION estimated.

NEVER ENOUGH from the DEMS.

NEVER ENOUGH government from the Dems.

Current Pres. proves what you guys want. MORE MORE MORE GOVERNMENT.

So SPARE ME YOUR BS LIB.

 

[eagle1462010]

Another point Lib................

Riddle me this...............

Who was the President who gave us STAGFLATION?
Who gave us Oil shortages, and long lines just to get gas?

Second point............
Which president rebuilt a stagnant military? Of which every President since him, benefited from the Retro fit and MODERNIZATION of our military?

Reagan brought us jobs and a economic prosperity felt for a couple of Decades. Bottom line he understood that you can't be anti-business and expect businesses to create jobs. He did this while still raising taxes from time to time. Yet our unemployment rates dropped after PEANUT HEAD GOT OUT OF OFFICE.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reagan continued the modernization of our military forces began under Carter.

Reagan, because of Iran Contra, caused 100s of officers and 1000s of NCOs to leave the Armed Forces. Many did not want to serve a government that sent munitions to the enemy.

 

[eagle1462010]

Reagan continued the modernization of our military forces began under Carter.

Reagan, because of Iran Contra, caused 100s of officers and 1000s of NCOs to leave the Armed Forces. Many did not want to serve a government that sent munitions to the enemy.

I served under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton. Moral was low in the early 80's, and we were serving on RUST BUCKETS. That all changed under Reagan, and the Modernization of the military increased Moral and the abilities of our Military.

While Iran Contra, and the Marines dying in Lebanon ticked me off it didn't change the fact that REAGAN WAS A GREAT MAN. The Contra affair was done to SAVE AMERICANS held ,hostage. I'm sure it turned his stomach to do so, but he did it to get Americans back home to there families.

Militarily Iran Contra was INSIGNIFICANT, even though we gave them some high tech stuff. The amount given didn't MEAN JACK SQUAT TO OUR MILITARY on the Battlefield at all. Their abilities versus ours is like a bug hitting the windshield of a Semi. INSIGNIFICANT.

Reaganomics worked and pulled us out of a DEEP RECESSION PERIOD. America became prosperous for nearly 25 years.

But of course you will discount those historical figures and say Obama is the way to go maybe? Obamanomics are the EXACT OPPOSITE OF REAGANOMICS, which is why the current recovery is SO SLOW. Because Obama ATTACKS BUSINESS, instead of being BUSINESS FRIENDLY to CREATE JOBS.

 

[eagle1462010]

Texas v. California: The Real Facts Behind The Lone Star State's Miracle - Forbes

By Chuck DeVore

Politicians and economists alike are invested in promoting or debunking the “Texas Miracle”—the contention that Texas is better off economically due to policies that favor lower taxes and less regulation.

New economic data provides more grist for this discussion.

If Texas is doing well and does offer a model to the nation, then one set of policy choices ought to be followed. Or, if Texas isn’t doing all that well or does not offer a useful model to follow, then Texas can be ignored in the larger, national discussion of what policies work best for general prosperity.

There are two arguments frequently deployed against Texas: Texas’ economic growth is driven by population increases due to the attractiveness to business of cheap labor and a warm climate; and energy production plays the main role in Texas’ economy.

Texas’s relative success is best measured against a peer: California.

California and Texas are the most populous states. They both have diverse populations, large numbers of immigrants, abundant energy and natural resources, long coastlines and a border with Mexico.

Most importantly, California and Texas, alike in many ways, have diametrically opposed public policies. California’s state and local tax burden ranks as America’s 4th-highest compared to Texas at 45th. California taxes a 42 percent larger share of state income than does Texas, California’s restrictive energy policies discourage oil extraction, even though it has the largest proven shale oil reserves in the nation; while its industrial electrical rates are 88 percent higher than in Texas.

These policy differences contribute to a divergence in economic performance.

In June, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis released new data on state real per capita gross domestic product for 2012. Performance for 2009-2011 was also revised, with California seeing a downward revision of 2.6 percent and while Texas’ performance was revised upward by 0.5 percent. The new figures show that in 2011 Texas surpassed California in real per capita gross domestic product while a separate report showed Texas expanding its lead in real per capita personal income.

What’s remarkable about this data showing Texas’ prosperity relative to California is how counter it runs to prevailing notions that California, with Silicon Valley and Hollywood, is a land of wealth and opportunity while Texas, part of the South, is mired in low wage poverty. In fact, Silicon Valley, as important as it is to California, only amounts to 10.4 percent of the Golden State’s economy while employing 6 percent of Californians. The mining industry in Texas, of which oil and gas extraction are the main part, generated 9.8 percent of Texas’ GDP in 2012 significantly less than manufacturing’s share of 14.5 percent—the Lone Star State’s economy is more diversified than its critics contend.

As for population and job growth, from 2000 to 2012, California grew 11.9 percent. Texas more than doubled California’s growth at 24.4 percent. The U.S. population expanded 11.3 percent in that time. Much of Texas’ growth came from domestic migration, while California lost residents to other states, Texas being the most common destination; this alone should cause pause to those who say that migration to Texas is driven by the weather. From January 2000 to April 2013, nonfarm payroll grew an anemic 2.6 percent in California compared to Texas’ 19.7 percent. U.S. job growth over that time was 3.6 percent.

If, as the critics opine, Texas is adding jobs simply because it is adding people, then the ratio of jobs added to population increased ought to be roughly the same there as in the U.S. as a whole. The data shows the opposite. Texas added one new job for every three people from 2000 to 2013, while the nation added one job for every seven people, meaning that Texas outperformed the U.S. job creation rate by more than two-to-one. In the same period, California added one job for every 11 new residents.

No amount of taxes will allow one worker to support 11 people indefinitely, no matter how robust the welfare state.

COMMENTS

Texas is using the principles of REAGANOMICS, and is SUCCEEDING.
California is using OBAMANOMICS and is failing.

The proof is there. Success versus Failure. But of course the Libs will follow the FAILURES instead of the MODELS OF SUCCESS.

 

[Bfgrn]

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

From the Treasury department. Interest on the debt alone.

252 BILLION THIS YEAR.
359 BILLION LAST YEAR.
454 BILLION IN 2011

The United States cannot SUSTAIN THE CYCLE OF DEBT. Yet we are pushing the Gas pedal on Debt when we should be HITTING THE BRAKES.

Again, INSANITY.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

90'S...........Clinton...........

Backed into a corner via ACTUAL GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWNS, signed KEY LEGISLATION ACTS pushed for by the Republicans, INCLUDING WELFARE REFORM and MASSIVE CUTS TO THE MILITARY nearly got us to a BALANCED BUDGET.

When it worked the LEFT SCREAMED LOOK WHAT CLINTON DID...............

Yet he was FORCED TO DO SO.

Prescription drug bill. Passed by Bush. Then the left SCREAMED LOOK AT THE BIG SPENDER BUSH, yet their PROPOSED BILL was estimated at DOUBLE THE COST AT THE TIME. 800 BILLION estimated.

NEVER ENOUGH from the DEMS.

NEVER ENOUGH government from the Dems.

Current Pres. proves what you guys want. MORE MORE MORE GOVERNMENT.

So SPARE ME YOUR BS LIB.

George Washington (1789-1797)
John Adams (1797-1801)
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
James Madison (1809-1817)
James Monroe (1817-1825)
John Quincy Adams (1825-1829)
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
William H. Harrison (1841)
John Tyler (1841-1845)
James K. Polk (1841-1849)
Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)
Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
James Buchanan (1857-1861)
Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)
Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881)
James A. Garfield (1881)
Chester A. Arthur (1881-1885)
Grover Cleveland (1885-1889)
Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893)
Grover Cleveland (1893-1897)
William McKinley (1897-1901)
Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)
William H. Taft (1909-1913)
Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)
Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
Harry S. Truman (1945-1953)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)
Richard M. Nixon (1969-1974)
Gerald R. Ford (1974-1977)
Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
= $1 trillion dollars of national debt

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
= $1 trillion dollars of national debt

 

[eagle1462010]

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes
In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies. As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics. That prediction seems to be on track.

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:

We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.

What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics. Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs.

The capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, counting the new Obamacare taxes going into effect that year. The total tax rate on corporate dividends would increase by nearly three times. The Medicare payroll tax would increase by 62% for the nation’s job creators and investors. The death tax rate would go back up to 55%. In his 2012 budget and his recent national budget speech, President Obama proposes still more tax increases.

Instead of coming into office with spending cuts, President Obama’s first act was a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. In his first two years in office he has already increased federal spending by 28%, and his 2012 budget proposes to increase federal spending by another 57% by 2021.

His monetary policy is just the opposite as well. Instead of restraining the money supply to match money demand for a stable dollar, slaying an historic inflation, we have QE1 and QE2 and a steadily collapsing dollar, arguably creating a historic reflation.

And instead of deregulation we have across-the-board re-regulation, from health care to finance to energy, and elsewhere. While Reagan used to say that his energy policy was to “unleash the private sector,” Obama’s energy policy can be described as precisely to leash the private sector in service to Obama’s central planning “green energy” dictates.

As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%. After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more. After seven quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3 percentage points from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.

Previously the average recession since World War II lasted 10 months, with the longest at 16 months. Yet today, 40 months after the last recession started, unemployment is still 8.8%, with America suffering the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression. Based on the historic precedents America should be enjoying the second year of a roaring economic recovery by now, especially since, historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the recovery. Yet while in the Reagan recovery the economy soared past the previous GDP peak after six months, in the Obama recovery that didn’t happen for three years. Last year the Census Bureau reported that the total number of Americans in poverty was the highest in the 51 years that Census has been recording the data.

Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the latest CPI growing already half as much.

These are the reasons why economist John Lott has rightly said, “For the last couple of years, President Obama keeps claiming that the recession was the worst economy since the Great Depression. But this is not correct. This is the worst “recovery” since the Great Depression.”

However, the Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in. Similarly, the full results of Obamanomics won’t be in until his historic, comprehensive tax rate increases of 2013 become effective. While the Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom, will the opposite policies of Obamanomics, once fully phased in, kick off 25 years of economic stagnation, unless reversed?

 

[Bfgrn]

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes
In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies. As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics. That prediction seems to be on track.

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:

We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.

What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics. Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs.

The capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, counting the new Obamacare taxes going into effect that year. The total tax rate on corporate dividends would increase by nearly three times. The Medicare payroll tax would increase by 62% for the nation’s job creators and investors. The death tax rate would go back up to 55%. In his 2012 budget and his recent national budget speech, President Obama proposes still more tax increases.

Instead of coming into office with spending cuts, President Obama’s first act was a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. In his first two years in office he has already increased federal spending by 28%, and his 2012 budget proposes to increase federal spending by another 57% by 2021.

His monetary policy is just the opposite as well. Instead of restraining the money supply to match money demand for a stable dollar, slaying an historic inflation, we have QE1 and QE2 and a steadily collapsing dollar, arguably creating a historic reflation.

And instead of deregulation we have across-the-board re-regulation, from health care to finance to energy, and elsewhere. While Reagan used to say that his energy policy was to “unleash the private sector,” Obama’s energy policy can be described as precisely to leash the private sector in service to Obama’s central planning “green energy” dictates.

As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%. After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more. After seven quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3 percentage points from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.

Previously the average recession since World War II lasted 10 months, with the longest at 16 months. Yet today, 40 months after the last recession started, unemployment is still 8.8%, with America suffering the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression. Based on the historic precedents America should be enjoying the second year of a roaring economic recovery by now, especially since, historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the recovery. Yet while in the Reagan recovery the economy soared past the previous GDP peak after six months, in the Obama recovery that didn’t happen for three years. Last year the Census Bureau reported that the total number of Americans in poverty was the highest in the 51 years that Census has been recording the data.

Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the latest CPI growing already half as much.

These are the reasons why economist John Lott has rightly said, “For the last couple of years, President Obama keeps claiming that the recession was the worst economy since the Great Depression. But this is not correct. This is the worst “recovery” since the Great Depression.”

However, the Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in. Similarly, the full results of Obamanomics won’t be in until his historic, comprehensive tax rate increases of 2013 become effective. While the Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom, will the opposite policies of Obamanomics, once fully phased in, kick off 25 years of economic stagnation, unless reversed?

Peter "payola" Ferrara supporting far right revisionism...Imagine THAT???

 

[Bfgrn]

Another point Lib................

Riddle me this...............

Who was the President who gave us STAGFLATION?
Who gave us Oil shortages, and long lines just to get gas?

Second point............
Which president rebuilt a stagnant military? Of which every President since him, benefited from the Retro fit and MODERNIZATION of our military?

Reagan brought us jobs and a economic prosperity felt for a couple of Decades. Bottom line he understood that you can't be anti-business and expect businesses to create jobs. He did this while still raising taxes from time to time. Yet our unemployment rates dropped after PEANUT HEAD GOT OUT OF OFFICE.

Nixon...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reagan continued the modernization of our military forces began under Carter.

Reagan, because of Iran Contra, caused 100s of officers and 1000s of NCOs to leave the Armed Forces. Many did not want to serve a government that sent munitions to the enemy.

Militarily Iran Contra was INSIGNIFICANT, even though we gave them some high tech stuff. The amount given didn't MEAN JACK SQUAT TO OUR MILITARY on the Battlefield at all. Their abilities versus ours is like a bug hitting the windshield of a Semi. INSIGNIFICANT.

CAPITALIZED WORDS do not make comments any more significant or more correct.

None of the rebuttal above reflect the betrayal the American military felt with the public release of Iran Contra, or the fact that many experienced officers and NCOs left the Armed Forces.

 

[rightwinger]

It is remarkable how successful the media has been in closing down debate. Not merely marginalizing opposing voices, but actually shhhhushing those questions whose answers might prove....embarrassing.
Even momentous inquiries of an eschatological nature! Shhhhh!


1. Imagine if one were so obstrusive as to critique Obama as a Marxist, or a socialist, or a 'fellow traveler.' Even if a quotation from Obama himself were provided ( "...spreading the wealth..." "...you didn't build that..."), there would be instant shock, rejection, derision, and scoffing in disbelief.
One would be discredited...even if one were to speak of policies such as socialized medicine, that definitively Marxist program, one roundly applauded by Bolsheviks, progressives, statists, socialists, and fellow travelers.

2. What has been accomplished in our modern era is denial of reality. Not bad enough that freedom loving, individualistic, self-reliant Americans have elected a President who could accurately be identified with the terms Marxist, or socialist, or statist....but even worse, "one cannot even broach the subject without triggering an avalanche of opprobrium."
West, "American Betrayal," p.25.

3. "Even beyond the question of how Americans elected a man incubated in a radical comfort zone peopled by Stalinists, Maoists, card-carrying Communists, socialists, and postmodern revolutionaries unhelpfully obscured as "Alinskyites," and who first ran for elected office as both a Democrat and socialist (New Party) "fusion" candidate, how did this topic of crucial public interest become a conversation ender, something to wave off, frantically, like a bad smell?" Ibid.






a. " The assertion that Barack Obama is a socialist became a hallmark of the 2008 presidential campaign... “When you spread the wealth around,” Obama had said, “it’s good for everybody.” That, McCain insisted, sounded “a lot like socialism,” as did Obama’s proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy and high earners for the explicit purpose of taking better care of the lower and middle classes with that redistributed money. Republicans believed they had hit a rhetorical mother lode with this line of argument in 2008, but their efforts to make hay of Obama’s putative socialism proved unedifying, if not outright comic."
« What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama? Commentary Magazine






4. Who let America down?
Was it the Democrats, the party owned lock-stock-and barrel by the far Left, the socialists, the Marxists?
Was it the American public, the folks who seemed unable to get excited about anything, the folks who epitomized George Santayana's warnings?

No, it was the Right...the so-called conservative pundits who didn't scream, or make much of a fuss about the attitudes and associations of the Marxist candidate.

a. In October of 2008, on Fox, Charles Krauthammer had his chance....and, instead, pooh-poohed the socialism:

" Since the word "socialism" has reared its ugly head, let's dispose of it..... Socialism actually is when the government takes over means of production, or Lenin called the commanding heights of the economy.... Now, obviously what Obama is talking about is what we have had for a long time, progressive taxation. Now, he wants to raise the marginal income tax rate from about 36 percent today to about 39.5. It is a little higher because he wants to eliminate a lot of deductions that the other income people have, so perhaps it's in the 40's."
'Special Report' Panel Discuses Whether Obama's Tax Plan Is Socialism in Disguise; Whatever Happened to Bipartisanship? | Fox News



b. There seems to be fear from those who should give the story the prominence it deserves, and the reason was ably described by Andrew C. McCarthy as ..."fog from the vaporous arsenal to which Alinskyites resort when they know that clarity would betray their radicalism and antagonize the public."
Read more at National Review?s Andrew McCarthy Has a Sweet Jihad For You



So....American could have been a champ, but our big brothers sold us out. They had a chance to lay it all out....to make it a fight....but played word games instead.




On The Waterfront-The most Famous scene with that quote-I Could Have Been A Contender.flv - YouTube




America got a one way ticket to palookaville.

I keep screaming that Obama is a Muslim but the liberal media keeps CENSORING me

 

[eagle1462010]

Most of Reagans debt was spending on the military.
He also was turned over an ECONOMY IN RUIN. Stagflation, Gas Lines, Double Digit Unemployment.

Yet he Turned the Economy around, and ended the Failed Policies of Carter.

While the debt went up a TRILLION, which wasn't a good thing, he tried to pass legislation aka SPENDING CUTS on Domestic Spending, which would have brought the debt down by 100's of Billions. Congress didn't allow these cuts.

Now we have nearly 2 TRILLION IN STIMULOUS SPENDING and OUR ECONOMY IS STILL NOT RESPONDING.

Because we are USING THE FAILED POLICIES of OBAMANOMICS, which are the EXACT OPPOSITE OF REAGANOMICS.

One theory worked, and ONE ISN'T WORKING even though they THROW MONEY AT THE ECONOMY like it was candy at MADI GRAS. It doesn't work, because you CAN'T ATTACK BUSINESSES and expect them to INVEST AND CREATE JOBS.

Which is exactly why we need another REAGAN and not an ECONOMIC IDIOT like Obama.

Texas is another SHINING EXAMPLE OF WHAT WORKS. But let's just ignore that as well, as we DRIVE OUR COUNTRY DOWN THE PATH TO HELL.