As inflammatory, divisive rhetoric pours forth through the media, I hear only silence from a party that waves the flag of patriotism but stands silently by while its right wing subverts the Constitution and the principles on which our country was founded.
I keep hoping for a modern-day Margaret Chase Smith, who had the courage to denounce Sen. Joe McCarthy’s vicious attack on fundamental American principles in the 1950s. But I see no one among today’s Republican leadership — not Susan Collins, not Olympia Snowe, not any of the would-be GOP governors of Maine.
Who will step forward and say out loud that the bigoted, slanderous, anti-American ravings of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the Cheney kid and their ilk do not represent the true Republican view of America?
Who will articulate a constructive alternative, based not on “just say no,” but on a vision that will move this state, this country and all its people forward?
Bill Berlinghoff, Farmington
Report a correction
"As inflammatory, divisive
"As inflammatory, divisive rhetoric pours forth through the media"...you just have to love anyone who writes an editorial criticizing what he then himself does in the letter to the editor.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Veto
So, what you're saying is Ronnie was so afraid of those mean democrats he didn't dare use the veto pen? And, using your reasoning, the Reagan tax cuts weren't his at all because the democrats were in charge and got whatever they wanted. So, the democrats are responsible for the Reagan tax cuts? Can't have it both ways...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Then Speaker of the House Tip
Then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neal and President Reagan agreed on the tax cuts. They also agreed to some of the spending increases. The problem was the spending increases were at much higher rates than the President wanted. So why didn't President Reagan use his veto pen at that point. Unemployment was over 10%, inflation was out of control and interest rates were in the high teens. He knew and understood that in order to get the economy moving, he need to get money back into circulation and the best way to do that was through tax cuts.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.don't worry
they are excellent at the blame game, they'll figure it out.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.blame game?
"they are excellent at the blame game" by Tron - look who is talking...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I am
have you got anything pertinent to contribute, or are you just going to be a jerk?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Won't usurp
I really don't think anyone wants to usurp your role here, tron. ;)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Nithing new, move along...
tron specializes in 4 letter words to describe those who prove him wrong...its his best defense..sort of.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'll leave you with this. I
I'll leave you with this. I am reading your comments almost every day and know what you are contributing. All I can say is, that name calling is not nice ... You are allowed to disagree but with manners. Thank you.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.ratings
Ratings determine facts - just ask the pirate.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.After having considered the
After having considered the source, the Pirate takes that as a compliment.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."The bigoted, slanderous,
"The bigoted, slanderous, anti-American ravings of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the Cheney kid and their ilk"....
That must be why Limbaugh and Beck have the #1 and #3 rated talk shows in all of radio. The parrot, a liberal, has a catnip induced theory; "that which we don't understand, we fear; that which we fear most, we hate." So, hate away, Bill, while Beck, Limbaugh and their ilk keep Americans informed of the highjacking of their country that is taking place at the hands of the radical left wing democrats.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Hate sells. Limbaugh and
Hate sells. Limbaugh and Beck stage their everyday Nuremberg Rallies. The only difference being that Hitler actually fought for Germany and was wounded. Neither of those ÜberClowns with a microphone ever swore an oath of enlistment to Uncle Sam. It's clear that's the gold standard their patriotism is based upon.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Neither did Clinton or obama
Neither did Clinton or obama
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Clinton and Obama hold don't
Clinton and Obama hold don't host "Daily Hates" (Nuremburg Rallies) like your liddle Nazis do.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Only because they couldn't
Only because they couldn't draw the audience. How's Airamerica doing these days. Or, what are Rachel Madcow's ratings for her show?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Rallies, no
No, veritas, they don't hold "Nuremburg rallies". But, The Great Obama DOES broadcast his propaganda bullsh*t weekly... (Maybe, he's more of a Goebels, huh?)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Elected Presidents have a
Elected Presidents have a duty to give speeches.
What's Palin and Liz Cheney running their Pie-Hole's for???
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Freedom of speech guaranteed
Freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment? It's all about expressing opinions. Which is what we're all doing here. Well...most of us.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Always
followed by a republican denial, or temper tantrum.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.And your little diatribes are
And your little diatribes are often at odds with reality. So what?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Thief!
@ xyz: Apparently you attended the same school as SSDD (or maybe you're actually the same person). You, like SSDD, apparently feel no need to provide proper attribution to written work created by others - even if it is a copywritten article, of which portions of your post happen to be. That makes you a literary thief and of little-to-no credibility. This is the first time I have called you on this practice, but if you continue to do so, I will protest to the SJ editorial board to have your account cancelled for thievery. Cease and desist or give proper recognition to the author who composed the article.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Wow, now you think you're
Wow, now you think you're interpol for the internet, what is it with you reptiles you think you own everything? That came to me in an email just as it was and I do admit to emboldening it so what. So if you have nothing else to say. I am done with you your dismissed, little boy.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Icono Clast??? He he he
First, try googling "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement", and see if your putting that private email into a public forum without permission from or proper attribution to the author doesn't "fit the crime". Authors expend great effort in creating original written works and frequently protect them by affixing a copyright to prevent unauthorized and illegal reproduction of those works by hackneyed writers who are too lazy or incompetent to perform their own research and develop their own literary products....akin to copying and pasting an email.
Second, you assume that because I disagree with you that I am a - how did you put it? - a "reptile"? That's good for a chuckle. Not that it matters a whole bunch, but I am not a Republican. I am a registered Independent with conservative philosophies. Save your ridiculous insults for someone else.
Third, I am probably old enough to be your father, so dispense with your futile attempt at ridicule with your "little boy" opprobrium.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No fake?! He hijacked the
No fake?! He hijacked the post from someone else? Damn...and I gave him a compliment, too. I am feeling gracious today. Where's veritas? I want to chest bump him!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If Republicans are the party
If Republicans are the party of just say no, Democrats are the party of just hear nothing but their own words. It's ironic that Obama chose this Thursday for his umpteenth absolutely final date for passage of his health mangling bill. With Wednesday being St. Patrick's Day, we're in for a double load of blarney this week.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Examples please
I appreciate yor passion, Bill, and I would certainly not want to be on the side of anyone subverting our Constitution. If you would be so kind as to provide a few specific examples of how Beck, Limbaugh, or Cheney have done that, and provide the article and section where I could find that violation in the Constitution, I would greatly appreciate it. If you are right, it appears that I have been deceived. Thanks! Good morning to the "big three!"
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Good one Bill, surely you
Good one Bill, surely you realize what your dealing with here. Well I guess not or you would not have written the letter. Do the words narrow-minded, bigots, faux patriots, cowards, remind you of anyone hmmmmmmmmm seems to describe the reptiles to me and many others. Did you hear the latest about the Texas, you should it could be coming to books your children might have to use. Doesn't it make you wish that Texas would declare war on real America so we could "clean out the barn" as that famous Texan Ross Pearot said.
"Texas Board of Education on Friday voted to approve a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Father’s commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.
The vote was 11 to 4, with 10 Republicans and one Democrat voting for the curriculum, and four Democrats voting against.
The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has been diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states.
In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.
Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 160 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school. The standards were proposed by a board of teachers.
Efforts by Hispanic board members to include more Latino figures as role models for the state’s large Hispanic population were consistently defeated, prompting one member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out of a meeting late Thursday night, saying, “They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist.”
“They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians,” she said. “They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.”
The curriculum standards will now be published in a state register, opening them up for 30 days of public comment. A final vote will be taken in May, but given the Republican dominance of the board, it is unlikely many changes will be made.
The standards, reviewed every decade, serve as a template for publishers of textbooks, who must come before the board next year with drafts of their books. The board’s makeup will have changed by then because the leader of the conservative faction, Dr. Don McLeroy, lost in a primary to a more moderate Republican, and two others — one Democrat and one conservative Republican — have announced they are not seeking re-election.
There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.
The conservative members maintain that they are trying to correct what they see as a liberal bias among the teachers who proposed the curriculum. To that end, they made dozens of minor changes aimed at calling into question, among other things, concepts like the separation of church and state and the secular nature of the American Revolution.
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schalfly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”
Dr. McLeroy pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent approach. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.
“Republicans need a little credit for that,” he said. “I think it’s going to surprise some students.”
Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians were interned in the United States as well as the Japanese during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.
Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.
In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. They also replaced the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.”
“Let’s face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation,” said one conservative member, Terri Leo. “You know, ‘capitalist pig!’ ”
In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in a section on teen suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.
“The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” Ms. Cargill said.
Even the course on World History did not escape the board’s scalpel.
Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among the conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)
“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.
Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”
It was defeated on a party-line vote."
So the party of no can say yes, yes to narrow-mindedness, bigotry, revisionism.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Oh, hum...zzzzzzz
Oh, hum...zzzzzzz
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.K.I.S.S.
Almost wore out my mouse scroll button trying to figure out which alphabet brother was clogging up the pipelines. If I was a gambling man, I would have guessed SSDD, but alas, I was wrong.....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Well done post
Sincerely, I mean that. I, too, have been following this textbook argument. But I do have a serious question (no, really). The objections that have brought up are well known. The question is this: when it comes to history, what exactly is historically incorrect about what they wish to include or emphasize? I know that you take issue with what they are excluding (separate argument) and I can respect that based on your political ideology which, of course, is different than mine. I see you take issue with what they are choosing to emphasize, but what is incorrect about it? I see this more as an issue of opposing ideological emphasis on which history is important, as opposed to distortion of facts.
1. Aquinas, Blackstone, and Calvin were influential historical figures.
2. Many of McCarthy's accused persons were shown to Communist sympathizers, although I personally think he an abusive drunk.
3. Germans and Italians were interred during WWII...it was not isolated to Japanese (it was still wrong)
4. Separation of church and state? Yeah...but not how it has come to be defined. The gov't should advocate no religion and hinder no religious groups (I am Christian). Let all freely worship according to their conscience (that is what Jefferson believed), even if I believe the Christian faith to be superior (Jefferson believed that, too)
5. The Black Panthers did advocate violence while MLK advanced his righteous cause with passive and peaceful demonstration.
6. There was a significant Christian influence in the founding of this country. Were there also some deists? Sure. But that doesn't erase the Christian influence.
7. There was a conservative resurgence in the 70's and 80's. See my hero...
I don't want to list every example...but seriously, which of these things that you listed did not happen? If it's the ideological emphasis you oppose fine, say that. It's honest. But to say they are making up history is inaccurate.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Minor correction...
Jefferson didn't believe the Christian "religion" to be superior, just the teachings of Jesus Christ, more specifically, those words attributed to Jesus.
He, like many people of his era, had no use for "organized" or government-mandated religions (i.e. state dictated churches). Quite frankly, the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was Constantine making it the official state religion of Rome.
You are spot on with your view of the original intent of the 1st Amendment. The federal government actually over-stepped their authority when they took prayer out of schools. Ironically, here in the LA area, exceptions have been made for Somali children who wish to practice their faith during the school day. For the record, I have no problem with that, but I think other faiths should be allowed to do so as well.
And also for the record, the phrase "Separation of Church and State" appears nowhere in any of our founding or legal documents. It was a phrase that Jefferson used in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The exact phrase he used was "wall of separation between church and state," and it was to assure them that the federal government did not have the authority to dictate, mandate, or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of religion, and no single religion or denomination would be adopted as the "official" religion.
A transcript of his letter may be viewed here: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html and there is a link on this page to his original letter at the Library of Congress.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You don't get it
they DO represent the true Republican view of America. That's why republicans are so dangerous to this country.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Republicans are the only
Republicans are the only chance this country has of being saved from what the current crop of democrats are trying to do to it. I realize that isn't saying a whole lot, but it is what it is. obama and his clowns have spent 14 months focusing on only 1/6 of the economy (national health care) while the other 5/6 of the economy (jobs, unemployment, banking, housing, national security, two wars,) is flushed down the s***h**e of party politics and indifference.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Dangerous? C'mon, tron.
Dangerous? C'mon, tron. What Republican ideals are dangerous? I don't know how old you are but I would guess that you have lived through at least 20 years of Republican presidencies. Please tell me what danger they have placed us in? Seems to me this is still a pretty secure place to live.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Reagan, tron was born in the
Reagan, tron was born in the 40's which in his own words means his parents "raised him during the Great Depression", trust me, I know...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Financial ruin
Republican presidencies have put the country on the path to financial ruin, starting with "triple the debt" Reagan.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.And what do we have now with
And what do we have now with your boy in charge.. and Bush's fault doesn't wash anymore. The goon squad have had 14 months and things have only gotten worse. Now, they're telling us unemployment will remain in the 9.7% range for the next two years. That isn't exactly the platform your man-child ran on, is it?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Funny how ....
Funny how the word boy can be interpreted. I saw that and thought, young and inexperienced. Tron thought "black".
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Enough of your racist tripe
the days of calling African Americans "boy" is over. There is no excuse for such blatant bigotry!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Yeah, you're right about that
Yeah, you're right about that but are you seriously trying to say that Republicans are the ONLY ones responsible for the debt? I am not defending debts or deficits but, seriously, you don't think any of the blame can fall on Democrats? All spending bills must, by Constitution, originate in the House of Representatives and, subsequently, be approved by them. The Dems had the House from 1954 to 1995 (including the Reagan years) and regained it 2006. Any increases in the debt or deficit spending, then, must fall on them. Clinton increased it some, too, in his first couple of years. But is also went down under the Republican Congress in the remaining years. W’s a little different…he ran up the debt, too but he also had some help from the Democratic Congress in his 8 years (’07 and ’08). In W’s early years, he has his own party to blame and I, as a Republican, am willing to hold him and the party accountable for that. I blame the RINO’s but that’s another story. Now, are you willing to admit that there is plenty of blame to go around or are you just going to blame Republicans? And will you have similar scorn for President Obama, whose projected budget is quite high? If we are going to fix these problems, we have to be willing to admit our own errors. I did. Are you?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Common Lil
Lil, you know that is completely false. President Reagan's tax cuts double revenue to the Treasury. The problem was the spending that the Congress past, which was controlled by the Democrats.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.executive order
Unless Reagan pushed through tax cuts using an executive order, then the dems were also responsible for the tax cuts. Can't have it both ways.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.President Reagan did not push
President Reagan did not push through tax cuts using executive orders. If you have info to this, please supply links. I'm not saying the Dems are not responsible for the tax cuts, what I'm saying is they are responsible for the spending increase.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.So
the Democrats increased spending by over riding President Reagan's and President Bush's veto? Please show references for such outlandish charges.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Never said that
Never claimed the Presidents veto the budget or that the Democrats overrode the veto. Please show where I said that.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Then what are you saying?
Stop changing the subject. Prove that the tax cuts produce sufficent revenue to pay our bills, ever. Hasn't happened, and with Reagan the Demcrates helped pass the tax cuts but Reagan passed the budget increases, maybe believing that the tax cuts would balance the budget, which it NEVER has. Time to admit that those precious tax cuts your prize so highly, JUST DON'T WORK! They never have.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.one more time
Not changing the subject, answering your question.
Tron, I'll go through this again. When President Reagan took office revenue was $517 Billion and when he left revenue had nearly doubled to $991 Billion. Now we both agree that a deficits grew and so did the debt. The reason they both grew was the increase in SPENDING. They were SPENDING MORE than revenues were increasing. What would have happened if revenues had not increased?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.ST...As the great Western
ST...As the great Western Philosopher, Filmore East once said. "Reasoning with a liberal is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end".
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.yeah, so
the deficits grew even larger. Every President who enjoys a stable or booming economy is going to see increases in revenues. When times are good people make more and pay more taxes. That was true under Reagan, Bush I&II and Clinton. However it was only during the Clinton Administration that we saw the deficits go down, so much so that toward the end of his Presidency, he proposed a surplus budget for BushII. Instead he squandered it by giving the surplus to wealthy folks and stuck future generations with triple the debt. Republicans cannot admit they're wrong, tax cuts do NOT produce sufficient revenue. It has been proven dramatically over the last thirty years.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The reason the economy grew
The reason the economy grew was because of the tax cuts. Go back, research when the cuts took place and when the economy started growing. The economy grew after the tax cuts. Tax cuts cause the economy to grow. If President Kennedy was alive today, he would agree with me.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.perhaps
Adolph Hitler would agree with you too, but what does it matter, the facts are the facts. During the Clinton administration most of the tax cuts were repealed, the economy did just as well as during the Reagan administration AND the budget was almost balanced. NONE of that has happened under a republican administration. Please open your eyes.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The words from President Kennedy
Here is what President Kennedy said:
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.No doubt
He believed it and so do you, however he did not have the benefit of living long enough to see that it isn't true. You have. Look at the results and you have to believe that while cutting taxes may increase revenues, it NEVER has been enough to eliminate the deficit and begin paying down the debt. NEVER.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Only because the politicians
Only because the politicians never reduce spending to coincide with the cuts; it's always an unbalanced equation.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.so
I guess that means tax cuts do NOT increase revenues, at least enough to equal spending. Isn't that the way it's suppose to work?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Don't you understand
Don't you understand anything, or do you just enjoy being obstinate?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.wrong
Tron, tax cuts increase revenue. We've established that. If the Reagan tax cuts would not have been past and spending would have increased at the rate it did, the deficit would have skyrocketed. The Reagan tax cuts doubled revenue during the 80's. Spending more than doubled. Revenue to the Treasury is not the problem even today. The problem is there is more going out then coming in.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.And tax increases
increases revenue, the trick is to try and balance income with outlays, something that happened under President Clinton, but has NEVER come close during a republican Presidency.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.what?
why is it necessary to balance the income with outlays? Just because you have more money coming in does not mean you need to spend it. When more money comes into a household, most people either pay down debt or save. They don't go on a spending spree which is more than the increase of income.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.so when
has this ever happened with your precious tax cuts? NEVER. What don't you understand? The tax cuts may increase revenue, but it has NEVER been enough to equal the outlays. Only minimal tax increases revenues enough to equal what we spend. Yes we could reduce spending, and that may be a good idea, so what programs do you want cut? And why hasn't the republican party done that?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Why are you so against tax
Why are you so against tax cuts? Do you even pay taxes? Afraid tax cuts will force cuts in your entitlement bennies?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.wrong again
I don't disagree that spending was not cut. That was the problem. Tron, I didn't say that the Reagan Budgets should have cut spending. What I said was that the increase did not have to be as large as they were. They could have increase the existing programs, but not introduce all the new programs that they did.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If sales taxes were cut in
If sales taxes were cut in Maine, would more people spend money here? Would that create more jobs? Better the economy? You betcha! Thus the reason New Hamshire is economically so much better than Maine, they've got it right AND they get those from Maine coming across the border to register cars and buy taxable products.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.half right
Your only half right. You are right when you say cutting taxes increases the revenue. If spending was kept flat, the deficit and debt would go down. The problem is and was that spend grew at a rate much faster than the rate of revenue. Even if President Obama increase taxes, he will still face the same problem. Revenue will not come in at a rate fast enough to offset the increase in spending. Revenue is not the problem, spending is.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Reagan's tax cuts may have
Reagan's tax cuts may have done that, RST, but the debt and deficit spending did increase under Reagan. I see it as an investment in the defeat of Communism, money well spent, I think. But everyone who has studied Reagan's ideology and his Presidency knows that he never got the budget reductions he sought from the Democrats. Reagan often had to compromise on that to get other things through. But you are right when you say that Democrats controlled the budget for the Reagan years. Any budget increases into deficit spending is on them.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Iran
Maybe he should've charged Iran a bit more for the weapons? Or maybe leave Iraq on the known terrorist countries list, and charge them more for weapons, too?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Always something positive to
Always something positive to contribute, eh, Lil?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.