posted April 14, 2008 11:44 AM            

For instance, O'Bomber proposes to let the Bush tax cuts expire. That's almost a 2 trillion dollar tax increase on Americans. O'Bomber has already proposed an additional, an additional 1.4 trillion dollars in new spending...over and above current spending levels.

Hillary, the co-president and her utterly corrupt and lying husband, Commander Corruption gave America the biggest tax increase in the history of the world..no kidding...in the history of the world...after promising to not raise taxes on America when he was only candidate Commander Corruption.

Hillary has proposed giving every baby a government funded private "education fund". Also proposed is a government funded "IRA". That in addition to the almost 2 trillion dollar tax increase because Hillary wants the Bush tax cuts to expire too. Letting the tax cuts expire would equal about a $3,000 per year tax bill increase for every American taxpayer.

THE POWER TO DESTROY
'Democrats, you're not my spouse'
Fed-up taxpayers rally for smaller government
Posted: April 13, 2008
8:02 pm Eastern
By Andy Barnett

ST. PAUL, Minn. – Thousands of outspoken taxpayers withstood freezing temperatures and blowing snow to rally for smaller government and less taxes yesterday in Minnesota.

Signs with messages like, "Democrats you're not my spouse, stop spending my money," and "I am not an ATM," were found everywhere. The poor economic climate nationwide and a recent statewide gas-tax increase had many at the rally seeing red.

The event took place at the state capitol and was organized by radio personality Jason Lewis, a regular fill in on the Rush Limbaugh program, who says the idea for the tax-cut rally started nearly a decade ago and has turned into an annual event.

"This goes back almost 10 years now when I just kind of threw it out there one day on the air," Lewis said. "I didn't think we'd have a big crowd on a Saturday back in the late 90s, but we had a huge crowd, and so every year we've been trying to put on a rally to show the politicians that there are people concerned about taxes in Minnesota."

The event featured a number of speakers including Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann who spoke with WND about the importance of getting involved.

"I think taxpayers across the country should take heed, and realize that at their state level they can have a tremendous impact," Bachmann said. "There were calls today to elect people who will respect taxpayers' pocketbooks, and to hold those who voted against taxpayers best interests accountable. There was a tremendous outpouring of support for initiatives to reduce the size of government."

Speakers at the rally touched on a variety of issues related to taxes. Topics included everything from taxes to fight global warming to funding universal health care. The crowd's consensus on government taxing and spending was clear: enough is enough.

"I think government is out of control and there's no end to their appetite for more spending and taxes," said Tom Disselkamp, a husband and father of three at the rally. "I wish they'd get out of our lives and return some freedom to us."

People of all ages attended, including college student like Alex Hoopes, who isn't sure the tax issue resonates with all his peers.

"I think college students need to take an interest in [cutting taxes] now because if things continue the way they are, it will certainly affect them in the future," Hoopes said.

The size and enthusiasm of the so-called "conservative base" is providing hope for Republicans in the 2008 election.

Bachmann believes there is a clear choice when it comes to the presidential election.

"I think that conservatives are looking at the candidates and they are clearly appalled at what they see on the Democrats' side with both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama," she said. "I think that the more they look at both of those choices, the more they're willing to look at Senator McCain who is adamant in taking on spending increases, he's been a real fighter for that, and (getting rid of) earmarks.

While many attending the event were certainly full of energy, others think it remains to be seen if McCain can draw that same kind of enthusiasm.

"I saw plenty of Ron Paul signs in the crowd, but I couldn't find one for McCain," said David Lubowitz, who also said he feels a little disenfranchised with the Republican Party.

In the end, the pocketbook could be a major factor in this election.

"This is a debate over your budget versus the government's budget. I happen to think you can spend your money more wisely than they can," Lewis said during his speech. "If the Bush tax cuts expire, 115 million taxpayers will see their taxes go up. We'll see $1.9 trillion of new taxes over seven years and that's just if the Bush tax cuts expire, but that's not enough for Barack Obama who wants to spend 1.4 trillion more over the next five years."

Lewis feels that the issue of high taxes is important to everyone.

"In the final analysis my friends, taxes are a moral issue, not merely an economical one," he said. "The right to keep the fruits of your labor is no less a personal issue than the right to free speech."
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61509

posted April 14, 2008 04:29 PM            

Let's not forget that in 1994, voters kicked the demoscats out of power in the Congress of the United States...because of their tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend policies.

posted April 14, 2008 05:23 PM            

Numerous times you've credited Bush for the economy during his presidency.

To me, you have to go one way or the other:

Either the President is responsible for the economy during his own time, or each President inherits the economy from their predecessor.

If each President is responsible for the economy during his own time in office, then Clinton was clearly quite a success.

If each President inherits the economy, then Clinton is responsible for W's boom, and George Bush the first (who raised taxes himself) may be partially responsible for the Clinton years.

The President who most sought Alan Greenspan's advice was Clinton. The only President to balance the budget in the last 20 years was Clinton (with the compliance of the Republican congress). The only President to reduce the deficity during the last 20 years was Clinton (once again with the Republican congress onboard).

posted April 14, 2008 05:27 PM            

In fact, I didn't vote for Bush for reelection. He broke his promise...Read my lips, no new taxes"

Get your crystal ball tuned up..or perhaps try some Windex or..perhaps just stop talking out of your lower orifice.

**edit

Commander Corruption certainly did not balance the budget by choice. Commander Corruption was dragged to the signing table on legislation on which he know his veto would be overridden by the Republican Congress.

Clinton certainly should have consulted Greenspan. Socialists and Communists don't know a damned thing about economies or economics.

posted April 14, 2008 05:33 PM            

April 9, 2008
Economic Scene
For Many, a Boom That Wasn’t
By DAVID LEONHARDT
How has the United States economy gotten to this point?

It’s not just the apparent recession. Recessions happen. If you tried to build an economy immune to the human emotions that produce boom and bust, you would end up with something that looked like East Germany.

The bigger problem is that the now-finished boom was, for most Americans, nothing of the sort. In 2000, at the end of the previous economic expansion, the median American family made about $61,000, according to the Census Bureau’s inflation-adjusted numbers. In 2007, in what looks to have been the final year of the most recent expansion, the median family, amazingly, seems to have made less — about $60,500.

This has never happened before, at least not for as long as the government has been keeping records. In every other expansion since World War II, the buying power of most American families grew while the economy did. You can think of this as the most basic test of an economy’s health: does it produce ever-rising living standards for its citizens?

In the second half of the 20th century, the United States passed the test in a way that arguably no other country ever has. It became, as the cliché goes, the richest country on earth. Now, though, most families aren’t getting any richer.

“We have had expansions before where the bottom end didn’t do well,” said Lawrence F. Katz, a Harvard economist who studies the job market. “But we’ve never had an expansion in which the middle of income distribution had no wage growth.”

More than anything else — more than even the war in Iraq — the stagnation of the great American middle-class machine explains the glum national mood today. As part of a poll that will be released Wednesday, the Pew Research Center asked people how they had done over the last five years. During that time, remember, the overall economy grew every year, often at a good pace.

Yet most respondents said they had either been stuck in place or fallen backward. Pew says this is the most downbeat short-term assessment of personal progress in almost a half century of polling.

The causes of the wage slowdown have been building for a long time. They have relatively little to do with President Bush or any other individual politician (though it is true that the Bush administration has shown scant interest in addressing the problem).

The slowdown began in the 1970s, with an oil shock that raised the cost of everyday living. The technological revolution and the rise of global trade followed, reducing the bargaining power of a large section of the work force. In recent years, the cost of health care has aggravated the problem, by taking a huge bite out of most workers’ paychecks.

Real median family income more than doubled from the late 1940s to the late ’70s. It has risen less than 25 percent in the three decades since. Statistics like these are now so familiar as to be almost numbing. But the larger point is still crucial: the modern American economy distributes the fruits of its growth to a relatively narrow slice of the population. We don’t need another decade of evidence to feel confident about that conclusion.

Anxiety about the income slowdown has flared at various times over the past three decades. It seemed to crescendo in the first half of the 1990s, when voters first threw George H. W. Bush out of office, then, two years later, did the same to the Democratic leaders of Congress. Pat Buchanan went around preaching a kind of pitchfork populism during the 1996 New Hampshire Republican primary — and he won it.

Then came a technology bubble that made everything seem better, for a time. Record-low oil prices in the 1990s helped, too. So did the recent housing bubble, allowing families to supplement their incomes by taking equity out of their homes.

Now, though, we appear to be out of bubbles. It’s hard to see how the economy will get back on track without some fundamental changes. This, I think, can fairly be considered the No. 1 economic project awaiting the next president.

Fortunately, there is an obvious model waiting to be dusted off. The income gains of the postwar period didn’t just happen. They were the product of a deliberate program to build up the middle class, through the Interstate highway system, the G. I. Bill and other measures.

It’s easy enough to imagine a new version of that program, with job-creating investments in biomedical research, alternative energy, roads, railroads and education. On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama all mention ideas like these.

But there is still a lack of strategic seriousness to the discussion, as Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institution notes. After all, the United States spends a lot of money on education already but has still lost its standing as the country with the highest college graduation rate in the world. (South Korea and a couple of other countries have passed us, while Japan, Britain and Canada are close behind.)

The same goes for public works. Spending on physical infrastructure is at a 20-year high as a share of gross domestic product, but too much of the money is spent on the inefficient pet programs championed by individual members of Congress. Pork barrel spending does not add up to a national economic strategy.

Health care and taxes will have to be part of the discussion, too. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel of the National Institutes of Health pointed out to me that a serious effort to curtail wasteful medical spending would directly help workers. It would spare them from paying the insurance premiums and taxes that now cover that care.

The tax code, meanwhile, has become far more favorable to high-income workers at the same time that they — and they alone — have received large pretax raises. That doesn’t make much sense, does it?

It’s a pretty big to-do list. But it’s a pretty big problem. Since the economy now seems to be in recession, and since recessions inevitably bring their own pay cuts, my guess is that the problem will look even bigger by the time the next president takes office.

E-mail: leonhardt@nytimes.com

posted April 14, 2008 05:41 PM            

quote:

---

I never credited Bush elder for the ecomonic boom or the longest lasting econimic expansion.

---

I didn't say you did.

posted May 13, 2008 11:04 AM            

So here acoustic, we see the principle I told you about on another thread. Perceptions drive the economy, human emotions of fear of loss...when demoscats talk down the economy for political reasons...oh, but they always promise to fix the problem just as soon as they're elected. When Americans believe leftist bullshiit, they pull in their horns, stop buying and start saving. Then businesses respond by cutting back on inventory and staff, distributors stop buying from manufactures or cut back on orders and reduce staff. Manufacturers cut back on production, lay people off and put holds on plans for expanding their businesses.

Raising taxes have a similar effect on the economy.

The most egregious example ever recorded was Kommander Korruption, his korrupt wife and lying leftist sycophants in the press calling the economy..in 1991-1992..."The worst economy in 50 years". Right, the worst economy going all the way back to 1941. . An obvious lie which overlooked the worst administration in American history...Jimmy, the Teeth, Carter who gave America interest rates of 21%, inflation rates of 10% per year and unemployment rates of 7+%. America couldn't wait to get him out of the White House.

There's always pain somewhere in any economy. Someone is out of work, fired, laid off, company out of business through failed management etc. demoscats feed off misery and attempt to convince everyone their turn at misery is just around the corner. This is talking down the economy and in the real world leftists never visit, this kind of talk has consequences.

Even this guy from the Treason Times seems to understand the principle..fear of loss...so acoustic, why don't you get it?