Stanek Sunday funnies 4-17-11
My top 5 featured political cartoons for the week begin with the liberal view of defunding Planned Parenthood….
by Lalo Alcaraz at GoComics.com…
by Signe Wilkinson at GoComics.com…
by Jack Ohman at GoComics.com…
… then a conservative’s view of the liberal view of defunding Planned Parenthood, by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
… then back to the liberal view, this time about a bill winding its way through the Florida legislature that would force abortionists to show mothers an ultrasound of the babies they are about to kill, by Jim Morin at GoComics.com…
Apr.17, 2011 9:49 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The so-called Liberals are violators of human rights, liberty, freedoms, and the Constitution. They do not allow equal rights under the law, but they attempt to engineer a phony “Equal results” under the law, a clear violation of the Constitution of the USA.
Isn’t it telling that, in the bottom cartoon, the liberal cartoonist depicts the matter of ensuring that a woman sees an ultrasound image of her baby before the butcher slaughters the poor little human being, as if the woman is somehow the victim of government intrusion?
How about showing that concern for all the other criminals who want to violate other people?
After all, why should government be involved with restricting rape, kidnapping, pedophilia, torture, robbery, slander, libel, extortion, and so forth? Isn’t the government intruding into the rights of those people to do what they want with their own bodies?
That goes for those who wish to drink alcohol, take drugs, carry bombs on their person, and so forth.
If it is okay for a teenaged girl to get an abortion, and if it is government intrusion to ensure that she knows that a living human being is being butchered via abortion, then that same girl should not be restricted by government from using alcohol, drugs, or anything else. After all, she is supposed to be allowed to do whatever she wants with her body.
No!
Government, and society, does not have to allow everyone to do whatever they wish with their own body, otherwise children would all be free to take drugs, drink, smoke, drive, etc. Anyone who wants to strap on a bomb and go blow himself up could do so, and anyone who wanted to sell her body on the street, or via a call girl service, should be free to do so, for after all, she is doing whatever she wants with her own body.
Abortion slaughters a human being. The mother is complicit in such a violent act. It should not be permitted by law, and it should not be done.
Government is not interfering with the woman’s body, per se, but with the butchering of another human being. Nevertheless, the ultra sound is not much of an interference, for the government actually uses law enforcement to ensure that women, and the butchers who commit the abortions, can slaughter these innocent new human beings.
Once again we see how evil portrays the opposite of reality. In Wilkinson’s cartoon, the Republicans are shown pointing to a pregnant belly in horror, the mother being Planned Parenthood.
First, PP is all about non-parenthood with their exponentially increasing abortion business, and their contraception. At the NYC Council hearing on Bill 371, PP admitted that they do not provide prenatal care, but refer out for it.
Secondly, it is the Dem’s and their masters at PP who shriek in horror at swollen bellies. It was Obama who was willing to shut down the government over the loss of funding to America’s largest abortion provider.
And finally, Ramirez accurately captures the Boxer Gang’s rhetoric about PP and breast cancer. It would have been nice if the Boxer Gang admitted that PP does not do mammograms, but merely “Light breast exams” as it was described to me by “Elizabeth” at NYC’s PP headquarters. Light exams miss tumors in their earliest and most treatable stages, tumors that can only be visualized by mammograms and MRI’s, neither of which PP has.
It would have been nice of the Boxer Gang to quote proabort Dr. Louise Brinton of the National Cancer Institute who reversed herself in 2009, declaring that abortion is a known risk factor for breast cancer, and who in the same paper demonstrated that the risk for the deadliest form of breast cancer (triple negative BC) increases 540% in women who start oral contraceptives before the age of 18.
It would have been even greater of the Boxer Gang to point out that Dr. Brinton’s work only showed the risk factors for triple negative BC in white women, and that black women have three times the incidence of triple negative BC, and that this might have something to do with PP operating 78% of their centers in minority neighborhoods.
It isn’t that Republicans want women to die of BC. They want to defund the organization dispensing the cancer-causing pills like they were so many M&M’s, and who lie about their life-saving manual exams of the breast, when mammograms are needed anyway.
When they were running for election, i thought the GOP said they were going to focus on jobs…
Ex-GOP,
You are correct. And the way to put America back to work is to grow the economy. That involves the multi-pronged approach at cutting taxes, giving entrepreneurs incentives to invest, cutting government spending, as well as cutting government borrowing.
To be fair, Bush 43 really got the ball rolling on debt with his bailouts, but Obama has take that to a whole new dimension. Cutting PP funding is a small but significant step in the right direction. But it was a small part of a much, much larger series of cuts.
Oh yes – I forgot how stellar the growth was after Bush’s tax cuts… I withdraw my complaint about the GOP not focusing on jobs!
I’m just glad none of them try to run my families budget…
That involves the multi-pronged approach at cutting taxes, giving entrepreneurs incentives to invest, cutting government spending, as well as cutting government borrowing.
I think I’m hearing echoes of Representative Ryan’s so-called plan, which the Democrats will use to hang the Republicans next year.
Gerard, you’re probably a very good microbiologist, but you’re a lousy economist.
Sorry.
EGV,
The eight year average unemployment rate under George W Bush was 5.27%.
Draw your own conclusions.
Mary – don’t care about the unemployment under Bush – interested in GDP and unemployment of the pre-tax cut and post tax cut. We are working under virtually the same tax system now that we were under Bush.
Concerning PP funding. Who says this will shut down PP. Certainly the wealthy liberals and Hollywood hobnobs who support PP can’t wait to put their money where their mouths are and shell out what is needed, right? A million here or there is pocket change to these folks.
EGV,
I understand that facts can be annoying so of course Bush having a lower unemployment rate is irrelevant. You overlook the fact we now have a total incompetent as president, which would explain our situation better than would the Bush tax cuts.
mp,
I don’t mind the comment. I haven’t had any offers from economic think tanks, while I continue to get offers in science, so you may be right.
However, this is the same recipe used by the president who gave us the biggest tax cut in American history. It wasn’t Reagan, but JFK.
mp 12:10PM
Sounds like economics 101 to me. What do you advise instead?
Hi Gerard,
You you mean, JFK, that great Democrat icon, was a..gasp..conservative?
Mary – so now you are saying tax rates don’t make a difference?
However, this is the same recipe used by the president who gave us the biggest tax cut in American history. It wasn’t Reagan, but JFK.
Gerard, the US economy is now at the “zero bound.” What’s that, you ask?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k0_a1JS5hU
EGV,
I’m saying we have a total incompetent in the WH who is borrowing and spending us to death.
Tax rates aren’t the end all be all, but one thing we do NOT need now is a tax increase, though of course the total incompetent in the WH wants it.
Just think how Obama worshipper Chris Matthews would be tinkling down his leg if the unemployment rate was 5.27%. Yes, I know he said Obama gave him a tingle up his leg but I think Matthews, in his messianic euphoria, had the sensations and their direction of travel confused.
“It would have been nice if the Boxer Gang admitted that PP does not do mammograms, but merely “Light breast exams” as it was described to me by “Elizabeth” at NYC’s PP headquarters.”
And “Elizabeth” at PP’s NYC HQ speaks for every single PP in the entire country? I’m not sure how that would work considering Planned Parenthood is actually a federation of 85 independently-operated affiliates.
“Sounds like economics 101 to me. What do you advise instead?”
No, it sounds like supply-side economics theory, which is by no means universally accepted by economists.
Tax rates aren’t the end all be all, but one thing we do NOT need now is a tax increase, though of course the total incompetent in the WH wants it.
The “total incompetent” in the White House wants a tax increase on the top 2% in the US economy.
Are you one of those?
Mary – I’m very confused – how does spending us to death raise unemployment? It leads to higher deficits, but you didn’t talk about deficits – you said unemployment.
Why don’t we need a tax hike – unemployment was lower under Clinton – so maybe we should put it back to Clinton rates.
Paul Ryan wants some tax increases as well – just not for the super rich – so is he incompetent, or do you believe in tax increases for the poor with further cutting taxes for the rich?
EGV,
Why do we need a tax hike? Wouldn’t you argue instead that the gov’t needs to cut spending?
Isn’t that how you have to manage your household, or do you get to print money?
EGV, the government takes money from the private sector, it doesn’t generate its own.
Each $1.00 increase in gov’t spending reduces private sector investment by between .46 and .97 cents after two years and .74 and .95 cents after 5 years. Government spending substitutes for private sector investment, it does not supplement it. Increased gov’t spending reduces private sector investment, making the problem of low job creation worse.
The best thing for the economy is to slash the size, scope, and power of the federal gov’t.
Source: Liberty Maven “Why Government Spending Increases Unemployment”
mp,
I am one of those who argue that slashing gov’t borrowing and spending is what is needed, not more taxes.
The incompetent in the WH doesn’t grasp this basic concept of economics, that one must be fiscally responsible. All the money in the world will not solve the problem of one who is not.
I am one of those who argue that slashing gov’t borrowing and spending is what is needed, not more taxes.
Please consider the video (above) to which I linked.
Thank you.
“Why do we need a tax hike? Wouldn’t you argue instead that the gov’t needs to cut spending?”
How much, and to what end? Where should those cuts come from? Is it the deficit you’re concerned about? Above-average levels of unemployment? This hysterical “the sky is falling” mentality of conservatives has no basis in reality. You’ve been lathered up into a panic by Republican politicians and their rich supporters, whose interests begin and end with their own wealth.
When you folks talk about “slashing” government spending, are you talking about the social safety net that provides cash assistance, food stamps, medicaid, and subsidized child care to those women who give birth? Are you talking about slashing Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the disabled?
You want Planned Parenthood to be defunded. If low income women don’t have access to contraception and abortion, there will be more low income children born – with all the concurrent problems that poverty brings. Hopefully, you’re not willing to slash the programs and health services (poverty presents unique health problems) that these families will require which will include, for some, access to child protective services for some of those unwanted children who will suffer abuse by the parent who was affected by your “slashing” of government while millionaires have historically low tax rates and corporations, like GE, pay no taxes.
BTW, I’m sure those Hollywood liberal pro-aborts appreciate your support for their continued tax cuts!
Ah, the rich get richer and the poor get babies. Ain’t we got fun!
Regarding the link between abortion and breast cancer the National Cancer Institute says this:
NCI regularly reviews and analyzes the scientific literature on many topics, including various risk factors for breast cancer. Considering the body of literature that has been published since 2003, when NCI held this extensive workshop on early reproductive events and cancer, the evidence overall still does not support early termination of pregnancy as a cause of breast cancer. To view regular updates on this topic, please go to
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/breast/HealthProfessional/page2#Section_280.
Also, according to the Guttmacher Institute (Right, you don’t believe them)
Among abortion clinics in 2008:
•63% were located in neighborhoods where one-half or more of the residents were non-Hispanic white;
•12% were located in neighborhoods where one-half or more of the residents were Hispanic;
•9% were located in neighborhoods where one-half or more of the residents were black;
• 1% were located in neighborhoods where one-half or more of the residents were “non-Hispanic other”; and
•15% were located in neighborhoods where no single racial or ethnic group accounted or one-half or more of residents.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/2011/01/19/Guttmacher-Advisory.pdf
mp,
I ask you, when there is out of control spending and increasing debt what is the best course of action? Fiscal responsibility or incessent borrowing and spending?
Thank you
I ask you, when there is out of control spending and increasing debt what is the best course of action? Fiscal responsibility or incessent borrowing and spending?
With all due respect, you’re caught up in what is known as a “fallacy of composition” problem. Managing a household, or a business, is not the same as managing a national economy.
The same rules do not apply, so the solution is not always intuitively obvious.
Again, I urge you to watch the video. Koo’s presentation is most excellent.
joan, 1:46PM
LOL.
Let me make this simple. A very good friend of yours is deeply in debt. Its obvious to you this person spends more than they take in. Would you advise your friend to continue borrowing and using a credit card, or would you advise the person that he/she badly needs to get their fiscal affairs in order and fast? That they need to be more responsible with their spending. Would you be willing to loan this person money? Or do you have the insight to realize this would only be adding fuel to the fire?
Once again the toll, CC, admits that babies are born if the poor do not get abortions:
“Ah, the rich get richer and the poor get babies. Ain’t we got fun!”
Usually pro-abortionists are not so forthright in admitting that abortions kill babies, but this is not the case with our resident troll, CC. I tell you what, CC, when we finally do succeed in getting funding to Planned Parenthood stopped and you have to compete on a level playing field with our 100% donor funded pro-life centers that provide life affirming assistance to women who come to them for compassionate help, then you will see how pathetic the support is among people for abortion. Right now PP is propped up by the government to the tune of a million dollars a day–they would never get that much from you and your lib cohorts.
Ex:
Obama’s policies have failed us. We have been over this ground several times now, and always with the same results. Your side sees only light and truth from Obama. Bush created millions of jobs—Obama has presided over the loss of millions of jobs—it does not matter. Whatever Obama does is great because he is great, or so the thinking seems to be.
On the other hand can you present evidence that our side regarded Bush with the same lofty regard as that which caused the tingles going up Matthew’s leg? How about the supposed conservative, David Brooks in the New York Times relegated to uttering nonsense about the crease in Obama’s pants making him look presidential? Where is the equivalent of this re Bush?
And if anyone was paying attention, some conservative talk show hosts were slamming Bush every which way due to him not holding the line on costs and growing government. With Obama is Ed Shultz or Chris Matthews slamming him for not towing the liberal line and his promises on the wars, on Guantanamo, on keeping the Bush tax cuts, on the failed promise that the stimulus package failing to keep unemployment under 8%, on there being “shovel ready jobs” that never existed etc?
To answer the above with any amount of specificity would be above my pay grade, but I will hazard a guess: no, the MSM and the aforementioned parties do not drag Obama through the landscape littered with his broken promises because whatever Obama does is great. There is not a liberal counterpart in today’s media that takes him to task in the same manner as most conservatives took Bush to task. And this goes right to the heart of the matter—the intellectual dishonesty of the left.
“100% donor funded?”
February 11, 2007|Stephanie Simon | Times Staff Writer
“austin, texas — In an experiment that’s opening a new front in the culture wars, a growing number of states are paying antiabortion activists to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies.
At least eight states — including Florida, Missouri and Pennsylvania — use public funds to subsidize crisis pregnancy centers, Christian homes for unwed mothers and other programs explicitly designed to steer women away from abortion. As a condition of the grants, counselors are often barred from referring women to any clinic that provides abortions; in some cases, they may not discuss contraception either”
Unless theses states have pulled back funding, then CPC’s are not 100% donor funded.
“Some CPCs have enjoyed federal funding since 2000 to support “abstinence-only” programs in public schools… Many states still have state-subsidized funding for CPCs, in particular from the “Choose Life” license plate project that funnels money from state Departments of Transportation directly into CPCs and their affiliates. While many CPCs boast a total lack of government funding, a closer look reveals many receive funds from foundations that are, in fact, directly funded by government agencies”
“Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) are an increasingly powerful weapon in the arsenal of the anti-abortion
movement – and they are being heavily funded with federal abstinence-only education money.”
Let me make this simple. A very good friend of yours is deeply in debt. Its obvious to you this person spends more than they take in. Would you advise your friend to continue borrowing and using a credit card, or would you advise the person that he/she badly needs to get their fiscal affairs in order and fast? That they need to be more responsible with their spending. Would you be willing to loan this person money? Or do you have the insight to realize this would only be adding fuel to the fire?
Again, although your reasoning applies to a household, or a business, it does not apply to the management of a national economy.
You’re engaging in a fallacy of composition.
mp,
I viewed the video. I have also read economists who disagree. Economists are not in unanimous agreement when it comes to the economy. For instance, FDR was hailed by some economists, and history, as the president who ended the depression, other economists argue he prolonged it. I agree with the latter.
Let’s see. An eeeevil wealthy person buys a mansion. That’s money in the pockets of the real estate agent and staff. That’s local taxes that support the police and city services. The eeeevil wealthy person (many of whom are liberal), must have a household staff, groundskeepers, and security people. The house must be furnished. It must be maintained. Sounds like a lot of jobs for a lot of people.
Sounds like the eeeeeevil 2% actually spread the wealth. Tax them and they might do what multimillionaire John Kerry does, he docks his yacht where he doesn’t have to pay the tax, hurting the people who would have earned money maintaining his docked yacht.
Are you so certain taxing the wealthy is such a great idea?
mp,
Please elucidate.
~ ~ ~ ~
Mary,
Sometimes “simple” doesn’t help. The brain only absorbs what it wants to.
Milton Friedman anyone?
mp,
It doesn’t apply to a national economy. Again, depends on the economist. Do some googling.
CC 1:57PM
Funny you mention GE. Are you aware that GE CEO Immelt flew to Brazil with your buddy Obama on AF1? I have no idea if he paid his own way.
Mary,
Your example of the wealthy man who buys a house is a good one. Those trades people, wholesalers, retailers, etc., are out of work when they system goes awry.
Mark Levin (I think it was him?) recently played this audio tape on his show – Milton Friedman’s “Story of the Pencil”. It’s not directly related to taxes, but still, a good lesson in the idea of a free economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU
“Let me make this simple. A very good friend of yours is deeply in debt. Its obvious to you this person spends more than they take in. Would you advise your friend to continue borrowing and using a credit card, or would you advise the person that he/she badly needs to get their fiscal affairs in order and fast? That they need to be more responsible with their spending. Would you be willing to loan this person money? Or do you have the insight to realize this would only be adding fuel to the fire?”
You didn’t answer my questions. How much needs to be cut? Where should those cuts come from? And what is your specific concern about the economy in this context? You can’t just say “we’re in debt”–that much is obvious, and it’s been a fact of life for many, many years. What practical upshot of our debt are you most bothered by, and why?
CC,
Jill and I have given extensive coverage to the ABC link on our blogs, as well as the sham workshop where only one side of the debate was invited to participate. So, the NCI denial of the ABC link lacks the very scientific debate that would have validated that claim.
As for aborting the poor, take a stroll through Harlem and ask those folk if they believe that they would have been better off dead.
CC 2:10PM
Live with it. The ABC link findings remain inconclusive. Anyone can point to a study that supports their stand on an issue. The fact remains studies are ongoing and continually challenged.
So far, nobody has responded to my question of the safety net for mothers who give birth.
joan,
I think we could get rid of the Dept. of Education for one thing. We survived very nicely without it until 1979. I’d like to get rid of the IRS, well they did put Al Capone in the slammer so I suppose they are good for something.
I’d like to see better management of medicare and medicaid, cutting out fraud. I think states could better manage these programs. Oh, and Obama’s ”czars” could take a powder too. Even though he agreed to that in the “budget deal” he has said its now a no go. Trash Obamacare, the private sector does a better job.
Oh, and let the liberals support PP with their millions.
CC,
What was at one time a safety net has become a life of dependency for many people. I remember working on the maternity ward of a large city hospital over 40 years ago and “poor” women on welfare were getting the care they needed. BTW, these women readily admitted their pregnancies were not accidents.
The help has always been there for women who need it and no one is arguing it shouldn’t be.
Hi Janet 3:04PM
Thank you. Its always good to see you. The video makes a great point people overlook.
CC,
You hold out a choice between summary execution or generational poverty. People aren’t answering because they are tired of this false dichotomy. There is a range of other options that your dichotomy does not admit, such as no social services unless we have the name of the father and he is forced to either support the child, or go to prison. That’s just for starters.
Society ought not subsidize people’s orgasms through PP funding, and then be forced to either pick up the tab for the abortion, or the raising of the child. Treating the poor (who are largely minority) in this way holds them to a lower (animal) standard of human decency than non-minorities and smacks of racism.
It’s telling that the bottom cartoon is pointing to a baby and says “property.”
I have nothing further to say here.
Have a good day.
Why is it that as soon as you go to pull money out of all the groin stuff, the Libs scream that you’re putting the government “into women’s uteruses”? If you want us out, that means you want our MONEY out, too!
CC,
I agree with Mary who said, ”what was at one time a safety net has become a life of dependency for many people”. The safety net turns into a trap from which they can’t climb out.
Mentor programs are a wonderful way to reach young people, to give them the motivation and confidence they need. Those who are helped are often motivated to help the next generation, and so on. These programs are often started by (gasp*) the wealthy and they often pair up with private charities,and public and private schools. Corporations (the big bad ones) give them internships which can lead to full employment. A person who is proud of his accomplishments is more apt to continue on this path than revert to a life of dependency.
It’s been said by politicians recently that spending programs and entitlements need to be reviewed with a fine-toothed comb. That’s the way to do it. Let’s get the important programs for families in place and get rid of wasteful spending – that which both liberals and conservatives can agree on. I shouldn’t have to pay for poor people’s BC and abortions because a liberal tells me it will reduce fiscal spending in the long run. That’s not the attitude towards our fellow citizens that this great country was built on.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mary,
It’s good to see you as always. Thank you for your kind words.
Mary, putting aside for a moment how asinine it is to assume that cutting those agencies would be directly beneficial to reducing spending in any way– has it occurred to you that “getting rid” of the department of education would mean 5,000 jobs would be lost, and “getting rid” of the IRS would mean something like 100,000 jobs would be lost?
Sorry to sort of throw out a hot button post and then bail all day – getting prepped for a family vaca.
The only two responses I see directly to me:
Mary – why do we need a tax hike? We don’t need one across the board, but we do need to balance the budget with a mix of cuts and tax hikes. To just do it with cuts falls short in two places, in my opinion. One, it doesn’t call for equal sacrifice – the cuts will come down hard on middle and lower class without the sacrifice of the rich. Two, as shown by Ryan’s “plan” (used pretty loosely – more ideals than a plan) – if you just go with cuts, you are going to gut services to the point of really harming people – which as a Christian, I just can’t get on board with.
Jerry – I didn’t read your whole post – after you said “Bush created millions of jobs”, I knew it wouldn’t be worth much debate…sure, I think he created a couple million jobs. The population also expanded during his time, and he created far fewer jobs than any President in a while – so if you start an argument with that, I don’t think I’m going to agree with anything that comes after.
Hi amy.
105,000 useless taxpayer funded jobs lost. Sounds good to me. BTW, did you know that part of Obamacare meant the hiring of 16,500 more useless IRS agents to really really really make sure we cough up every dime to the gov’t? According to my googling, the DOE costs around 70 billion dollars. This for an agency we had no need for up until 1979. Perhaps you can tell me what occured in 1979 that made the DOE crucial to our survival. At least the IRS has something to its credit, it nailed Al Capone.
I threw it out there at the beginning just because, everyone yelled “jobs, jobs, jobs” while campaigning, and now what do we have? I think it has been interesting to see how the two parties govern once they get election and can push their agenda. Neither is too pretty.
I’m amazed by the GOP though – they’ve pretty much thrown the “compassionate” out of conservative, and essentially convinced all their followers (half the country) that we’d be best off cutting their services, in some cases (Ryan’s plan), raising their taxes so that the rich can be better off.
It is odd – people lining up to cut their grandparents Medicare so that somebody can afford a second yacht. And this is the “Christian” party option? At least in the past, the GOP expanded community health center funding, aid to poor countries, and expanded drug coverage to Medicare (though it was a flawed bill). Now the right doesn’t even pretend to care for most of the population!
Mary –
Useless jobs?
Do you have a “useless” job? Do you know of friends or family members that have “useless” jobs?
Jobs put food on the table. Jobs allow people to afford having a baby. Jobs allow people to send kids to college.
Before you go around yelling about “useless” jobs, look somebody in the eye and tell them their income is useless.
Pretty sick. Come on.
Hi EGV,
Horse puckey. Give those drunken sailors in Washington more money and they will spend it. BTW, I have considerable respect for sailors, drunken or otherwise so please do not regard that as an insult to our navy.
EGV, you fall for that old class warfare nonsense time and again. I pointed out in previous posts how the rich generate job creation. Look at multigazillionaire Sen John Kerry. To avoid paying taxes on docking his yacht in one state, he docks it in another. Who is punished? Kerry? Heck no, he just goes elsewhere. The people punished are the dock workers who maintain the yacht in the first state. Who benefits? The dock workers in the state that Kerry goes to avoid taxes. I’m sure he’s not the only one who does this. Is this any skin off Kerry’s nose? No way. Is this sharing any burden? Not for Kerry. Oprah Winfrey owns several homes. How many people does she hire to maintain, furnish, decorate, and staff these homes? Sure sounds like lots of job creation to me.
Taxing the rich won’t solve our problems, it only gives more money to people who are irresponsible with the money they already have, or should I say borrow and print.
Its not Americans of every level who need to pay more, its those politicians in Washington that have to be more responsible.
So let’s just do it the conservative way then – cut our Medicare and Medicaid – people who are sick can go to their local church and if that church doesn’t have money, the person can die in the streets. That seems to be the plan…
There are a lot of jobs in the country. Many created by small businesses. Many created by large businesses. Many created by our tax dollars.
At the end of the day, every single family on the money side of that job uses the money to buy goods and services. Your local restaurant doesn’t care the source of that job – just that money is being spent in their establishment.
Put you in charge, and what, a million of those jobs would be cut? Two million? And that isn’t going to affect the economy?
EGV,
No my job is not useless, especially if its your life I am trying to save. But my profession didn’t appear out of nowhere in 1979. I really wish you would tell me what occured that year that necessitated the creation of a multibillion dollar monstrosity like the DOE. If you know someone from the DOE I will be happy to tell them their job is useless.
16,500 more IRS agents, now that should help us all sleep better at night. That’s to make sure you pay up EGV, for that colossol boondoggle known as Obamacare.
BTW, do you know if the IRS put anyone other than Al Capone in the slammer? I don’t mean ordinary citizens, but real criminals.
Mary – Hey, can you read this please on the inaccurate claim of 16,500 IRS jobs?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002. Do you think we could do without that as well, since it’s also a recently-created agency?
Hi EGV,
Oh please EGV, cutting grandma’s Medicare to buy a second yacht? How about better management so we don’t lose billions to fraud and corruption instead? At least buying a yacht is keeping people employed. After all yachts don’t exactly materialize out of thin air.
I advocate block grants to states to manage the needs of their own citizens rather the having the feds do it. Also, allowing states to run their own programs that they find effective.
EGV, I am old enough to remember when Medicare wasn’t even a thought. Guess what, old people got care. My grandparents were always in the hospital, or so it seemed, and we were a very working class family. Somehow we never went belly up. The more the gov’t interferes, the more the cost increases.
So Mary – are you on Medicare?
EGV 7:05PM
Nope.
Opted out of it?
By the way – what did you think of the article on the 16,500 IRS agents?
EGV,
I stand corrected. Your link is from March of 2010. Further googling on more recent updates shows extimates of 1800, more than 8,000, and 16,500.
Guess its anyone’s guess, eh EGV? When it comes to the gov’t though I would err on the side of excess and lots of extra wasted billions.
joan,
I think the woman running the Dept of Homeland Security is useless and and a huge waste of taxpayer money. I have my reservations about that agency as well.
Joan –
Sorry to tell you – after further review. I’m with Mary!
Get rid of the military – all government – health care – down with teachers!
We can just all buy guns, poor whiskey on our wounds, and give a bigger middle finger to the IRS! Full freedom, here we come!
EGV,
LOL! Lighten up my friend. I will agree however on the big middle finger to the IRS.
Not that I advocate for no government, but if there wasn’t one, everyone would have healthcare because it would be ridiculously inexpensive. Fifty years ago, people didn’t have to worry about stuff like health insurance because you could actually afford to pay a doctor to treat you if you got sick. Now, thanks to the explosion in costs CAUSED by Medicaid and other insurance programs, NOBODY can afford healthcare unless they have some kind of insurance. Of course, now it’s too late to do anything about it. Great job, politicians.
Not to read too much into fiction, but anyone ever watch the old TV show “Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman”? What kind of insurance did “Dr. Mike” take? How many patients did she turn away because they didn’t have insurance? As I said, I know it’s fiction, but what kind of insurance do you think doctors took in the old west? Doctors used to make housecalls. Can you believe it? Can you imagine a doctor coming to your house nowadays? Aside from surgical procedures and these extensive batteries of tests that are done now, medicine hasn’t changed all that much in 50 years. The drugs are mostly the same; there’s a few new variations on them and a few new families of medication, but it’s really not that different.
John – yes and no.
There’s a theory out there that if we had care like Vet care (animals, not veterans), that it would drive down costs – you get presented the care options and make the best fiscal choice.
The issue is, with animals, you always have the choice of just putting them down if things are too expensive. I’m guessing that you would always say if somebody comes in after a car wreck with life threatening injuries, we never let the person die – we always treat them. In that case, you are still going to have the situation where people want better technology, better care, and somebody else is footing the bill for it.
I don’t know where it will go – GOP for a while was huge into no medicare cuts, and any sort of cuts or boards or anything was “rationing”. Now Ryan’s plan is a huge financial rationing Medicare plan – so we’ll see what the end result is.
Ex says:
“… so if you start an argument with that, I don’t think I’m going to agree with anything that comes after.”
I am not surprised you do not want to read further as the more we look into Obama’s presidency, the worse it looks for him. Frankly, with all of his broken promises, the continued high unemployment, the soaring gas prices, and now added to that high food and energy inflation people have got to see the man for what he is—an economic illiterate, a very weak figure internationally, and a fraud. Paul Ryan discovered the other day that Obama is full of deceit as well. It is little wonder that his numbers are falling.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that a net of 3.1 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office and by comparison Bush had a net gain of over a million jobs added during his presidency. And as Mary points out Bush had a very respectable average unemployment rate during his eight years. Yes, Bush could have done better but when the numbers are put up against Obama’s it is clear that Obama is a major disaster.
“Yes, Bush could have done better but when the numbers are put up against Obama’s it is clear that Obama is a major disaster.”
That is absolute rubbish because Obama, although I don’t like him and didn’t vote for him, inherited an economy that was COLLAPSING. Nonfarm payroll employment peaked at approximately 138 million in November 2007, when the economic collapse began. The financial system melted down, much like the Fukushima reactors did, in September 2008. Nonfarm payrolls bottomed at approximately 129 million in February 2010. In other words, approximately 9 million jobs have been lost since the collapse began in September 2007.
Check out the graph from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank. Facts are difficult things.
Frankly, I’m asking myself why I’m bothering.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=PAYEMS&s%5B1%5D%5Brange%5D=10yrs
Ex says:
“Now Ryan’s plan is a huge financial rationing Medicare plan – so we’ll see what the end result is”
This so-called “financial rationing” is likened to Medicare Advantage, a hugely popular program in which seniors get to exercise control over their health care. Ryan’s plan would take the money and power away from institutionalized government entities and empower people to act in their own best interests. By comparison Obamacare will seek to ration care (i.e. control costs) by manipulating compensation to physicians based upon quantitative goal setting mechanisms and assessments determined by an appointed board.
The end result of Obamacare is that the government is the hidden hand lever puller in critical health decisions, versus the voucher system proposed by Ryan that takes government out of the health decisions and taps the economic dynamic of the private market to help contain costs.
mp:
Just reporting the BLS statistics. I would not call them “rubbish”. Your quarrel is with the statisticians at BLS.
Just reporting the BLS statistics. I would not call them “rubbish”.
I’m not calling the data rubbish. The data is correct. Your interpretation of the data is rubbish.
If you’re going to lie, learn how to do it convincingly.
Forgive me. I had to laugh at the first one, not because it is true, but because it is funny and absurd.
It is NOT true, because it is the ‘dead babies r us’ mob, who are predominantly democRAT, who have made a woman’s uterus a responsibility of government.
Should the government also be responsible for providing other feminine hygiene products?
The conservative response would be:
Your uterus, your choice, your responsibility, you pay!
“Keep your uterus out of my wallet!”
CORRECTION OF 10:52:
The collapse began in November 2007, not September 2007.
Ex-GOP Voter says: April 17, 2011 at 12:03 pm
“I’m just glad none of them try to run my families budget…”
===================================================================
Ex-RINO,
But you are perfectly comfortable with the democRATs making decisions about what kind of light bulb you may purchacse, what kind of toilet you may install in your home, what kind of car you may drive and whether or not you buy health insurance.
But it’s alright. Nothing to worry about. It’s the government. What could possibly go wrong?
I’m pretty sure that the woman in the second cartoon wouldn’t be pregnant if she was representing PP. Maybe standing in a pool of blood.
mp says: April 17, 2011 at 2:25 pm
“With all due respect, you’re caught up in what is known as a “fallacy of composition” problem. Managing a household, or a business, is not the same as managing a national economy.”
====================================================================
With any due repsect, we are not talking about managing a national economy, we are talking about fiscal repsonsibilty for the federal government.
The economy is self correcting if the OCD liberals will just chill out and let it happen.
This is not rocket science and the size of the budget does not change the dynamics of how you correct the problem of more spending than there is income.
The first responsible act is to cut spending and elimanate non-essential programs, departments, policies.
If I were to get laid off tomorrow the first thing that I would do is sit down with my wife and do a budget and see what we are spending our money on and then minimize discretionary spending immediatley, not take on any new debt, eliminate existing debt as quick as possible, refinance existing debt, sell assets that are not essential.
The problem with liberals is they believe the supply of other peoples money is inexhaustable.
Then we would find new ways to generate income.
If I owned my own business I might consider lower the prices I charge in order to increase cash flow and hopefully net income.
The same prinicples apply to any budget, no matter how large or how small.
This isn’t over yet and not by a long shot.
Enjoy your political games.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCRESNS?cid=123
Ken –
I clearly stated my distrust on both parties.
Jerry –
Obama tracks very nicely with Reagan - both came after hugely disappointing Presidents who pushed the economy to the brink of disaster. Both have seen the economic consequences of that President continue – if you remember, Reagan’s unemployment shot up considerably his first couple of years.
Do you believe that if McCain had been given the Presidency, we’d see unemployment at 5 or 6%?
On Medicare – Ryan’s vouchers grow less than the speed of costs, which means costs will be partially controlled by people skipping services as they can’t afford them. Furthermore, take a look at the CBO write-up (Ryan uses the CBO to attack Obama, so seems like we should use it as a good source…) on what happens to the price of plans without Medicare in place – they project the cost of care to rise faster than it would have if Medicare would still be around.
By the way – looked it up – Reagan came in with a 7.6% – average rate of just under 10 in 82 and 83 (similar timeframe in the Presidency as now).
So we’ll see where the numbers are when Obama leaves office in 2016.
If Obama doesn’t leave office until 2016, we won’t have a country left to tally any numbers about. God help us.
Jen, don’t worry. We’ll be fine after the second Obama administration. Seriously. We survived hard times before. I understand you’d prefer different policies, but saying “we won’t have a country left” is a bit over the top. Quite a bit, actually.
“Jen, don’t worry. We’ll be fine after the second Obama administration. Seriously. We survived hard times before. I understand you’d prefer different policies, but saying “we won’t have a country left” is a bit over the top. Quite a bit, actually.”
Yeah, don’t worry, these stupid destructive policies won’t do much harm…
I think we have heard that before. It wasn’t true then either.
“Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29— In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260
It was an inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzrBurlJUNk
Hal, it isn’t over the top if our nation is so totally buried in debt that even my grandchildren won’t be free of it; it isn’t over the top if we sell every last piece of our national soul to politically-correct, morally bankrupt policies that fund the destruction of preborn children and the family unit of marriage between husband and wife.
We won’t have much of a society or nation left. We’ll be enslaved to debt, sex, and abortion. Oh, but we’ll have lots of tolerance for “moderate” Islam and Sharia law.
you forgot to add “the sky is falling.” Seriously, things aren’t that different than they were 10 or 20 years ago. You could get rid of most of the deficit by repealing the Bush Tax Cuts. Abortion rate is about what’s its always been. Gay people might have a few more rights, but I think you can handle that.
“Seriously, things aren’t that different than they were 10 or 20 years ago.”
Are you high? That is not true. Illegitimacy is way up. Personal savings are on average negative. Twice as many women have zero children.
“You could get rid of most of the deficit by repealing the Bush Tax Cuts.”
Okay, you are high. Not by at least two orders of magnitude.
“Abortion rate is about what’s its always been.”
No, it isn’t.
The past few decades are a total anomaly in the history of the world.
Your assessment is so far from reality.
mp says:
If you’re going to lie, learn how to do it convincingly.
Do tell, I do not know what you are talking about. I am sorry that you are so agitated about the BLS statistics, but that is your problem, not mine.
Hal says:
Seriously, things aren’t that different than they were 10 or 20 years ago.
You may be surprised to hear this on a pro-life blog, but yes, things ARE worse than 20 years ago, much worse.
For starters there are some 26 million more abortions in the past 20 years, their lives ended before they could begin to realize their potential and achieve happiness and contribute to the well being of society. Some by now would be ready to start their own families.
Sorry to say you and other pro-aborts do not see this tragedy (and even go as far as applaud it), even as it is unfolding before our very eyes.
The United States suffered an attack on 9/11/01 wherein thousands were killed by a band of Muslim extremists whose hatred of American is shared by untold thousands (millions) more who would gladly do the same. The world since then has not become a safer place. We even suffered a brutal attack on our soil by another Muslim extremist on our own sons and daughters in the military–an unprecedented slaughter.
In the past 20 years the Democrats have morphed into what is in reality a Socialist party, though they do not have the honesty and courage to admit what they have become. Though you and others think this is a good thing there is not a place in the world where freedoms have increased under socialist rule.
Ex:
Do you believe that if McCain had been given the Presidency, we’d see unemployment at 5 or 6%?
No, but neither would it have reached 10% as McCain would have lowered the corporate tax rate from the highest in the industrial world down to a much more competitive 25%. This would have immediately leveled the playing field for U.S. companies in the global marketplace, thus spurring job growth. We could still do that now, but Obama has no vision or comprehension of economic reality.
So we’ll see where the numbers are when Obama leaves office in 2016
A definition of optimism from a true Obama lover.
No, but neither would it have reached 10% as McCain would have lowered the corporate tax rate from the highest in the industrial world down to a much more competitive 25%. This would have immediately leveled the playing field for U.S. companies in the global marketplace, thus spurring job growth.
Um, sorry, but corporate profits are now the highest they’ve ever been, so that canard doesn’t work either.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP
Ex-GOP Voter says: April 18, 2011 at 6:18 am
“Ken –
I clearly stated my distrust on both parties.”
=============================================================
Ex-RINO,
But you have not disavowed the democRATs.
What other conclusion can a ‘reasonable’ person draw?
You are about as apolitical as John the baptist was atheist.
On a more dreary note:
What is worse than the 2007 annual federal deficit?
The federal deficit for February 2010!
The community orgainzer is certainly showcasing his qualifications for running a non-profit enterprise.
When Jimmy jump double trouble Carter’s ‘Reign of Error’ began the inflation rate was 5.22
When Carter was shown the door four years later the inflation rate was 12.52 with high of 14.76.
When Ronald Reagan was inaugurated the inflation rate was 11.83, it’s highest during either of his 4 year terms. It dropped to a low of 1.10 and was 4.42 when he left office.
When b o was immaculated the inflation rate was .03 with a low of -2.10 and has since risen to 2.68, a swing of 4.78 in just and 2 1/4 years.
When Carter was sworn into office the unemployemt rate was 7.5 with a low of 5.6 and a high of 7.8 and it was 7.2 when the good baptist went into a field that perfectly suited to his abilities: A not for profit venture.
When Ronald Reagan took up residence in the White House the unemployment rate was 7.5 with a low of 5.3 and a high of 10.8 and it was 5.3 when Reagan left office.
When Moochelle obama moved into the white house with her two daughters and her husband the unemployment rate was 7.7 with a high of 10.10 and it is 8.8 after 2 1/4 years.
Misery index = inflation rate + unemployment rate
Misery Index by President
President Time Period Start End Change Average
Carter 1-77 to 12-80 12.72 19.72 7.00 16.26
Reagan 1-81 to 12-88 19.33 9.72 -9.61 12.19
b o 1-2009 to 3-2011 7.73 11.48 3.75 10.21
[As you can see by the numbers b o is on a pace to eclipse Jimmy Carters incompetence and replace him as the ’worst president in history’. Just wait til the hyper inflation and double digit interest rates kick in.]
When b o was immaculated the inflation rate was .03 with a low of -2.10 and has since risen to 2.68, a swing of 4.78 in just and 2 1/4 years.
Thank you for helping to prove my point. The year-over-change in the CPI was -2.10. It was MINUS. That’s called DEFLATION. In recent history, the only other times this occurred was in the deflationary recession of 1948 and THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Don’t take my word for it; here’s the graph.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=CPIAUCNS&s%5B1%5D%5Btransformation%5D=pc1
And if you STILL don’t think there’s a danger of DEFLATION, call a real estate agent and ask him/her how real estate prices are doing.
THAT is why Bernanke lowered the interest rate on Federal Funds to ZERO. We’re at the ZERO BOUND because, even though he did lower rates to ZERO when the financial system collapsed, aggregate borrowing has STALLED. Monetary policy isn’t working because lower rates ARE NOT inducing economic participants to borrow. Again, don’t take my word for it. Here’s the graph.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TOTBKCR
THAT is why the Federal Reserve is embarked on their program of quantitative easing and THAT is why the Obama administration embarked on a fiscal stimulus program, a program of EEEEEVIL DEFICIT SPENDING: conventional monetary policy wasn’t working.
And THAT is why Bush said, “This sucker could go down.”
Sorry, but the ignorance level here is INSANE. You folks need to take off your tinfoil hats and get out more often.
The community orgainzer is certainly showcasing his qualifications for running a non-profit enterprise.
No kidding! If you’re going to run a non – profit, could you at least make it your goal to break even?
“Non-profit” does not equal “money pit”.
“Non-profit” does not mean “no accountability”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD8viQ_DhS4
Welcome to the zero bound.
mp,
Sometimes it’s not all that complicated. There are a lot more consumers than government agencies to effect change in the economy, so why not reduce taxes for everyone, cut out all entitlements and dumb government spending (ask a fifth grader, they’ll know) and let the markets do their thing?
… so why not reduce taxes for everyone, cut out all entitlements and dumb government spending (ask a fifth grader, they’ll know) and let the markets do their thing?
I don’t know whether this is intended to be humor or you’re simply being gratuitous.
And, no, a fifth grader would not know.
As an aside, all of the labels hurled around on this site just amaze me. Liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Pro-abort or Pro-Life, black or white, good or evil, truth or lie.
I’m sorry, but I’m older than most–perhaps all–of the people who frequent this site. I can tell you that I’ve devoted my entire adult life searching for so-called truth, and the few truths I have learned can be written on one sheet of paper with room to spare.
All of you are searching for, or promoting, simplistic answers to this nation’s economic problems. There aren’t any.
mp,
I disagree, sometimes “simplistic” answers are appropriate.
Like,
1) I wasn’t trying to be funny.
2) I disagree. A fifth-grader can have more common sense than an adult.
3) Labels/generalizations can have their place in a conversation.
4) I give you credit for devoting your life searching for “so-called truth”. Many of us have done the same.
5) I may be older than you, but I’m not tellin’ my age. :)
I disagree. A fifth-grader can have more common sense than an adult.
Then assemble an economic summit of fifth graders and let them run the country.
I disagree. A fifth-grader can have more common sense than an adult.
Then assemble an economic summit of fifth graders and let them run the country.
====================================================================
I believe that has already been done.
There is no education in getting kicked by the same mule/donkey/jackass twice.
There is no education in getting kicked by the same mule/donkey/jackass twice.
Don’t strain your brain too much.
You might hurt yourself.
“Don’t strain your brain too much.
You might hurt yourself.”
mispoken
Not to worry. I do some warm up mental exercises before I do any heavy lifting.
The first thing I do remind myself there is a GOD and I am not him.
Then I ‘Remember the Alamo’ and thank GOD I was a natural born citizen of the great state of Texas, [and I have in my possession a long form birth certiifcate signed by witnesses and the physican who attended my birth and the names of both my father and my mother and the names of the Hospital, City and State where I was born. I also have in my possession my original Social Security Card containing the unique number assigned to me that also shows I was born in Texas.]
and not Kenya.
Oh that reminds me:
“Obamateur’s approval rating is so low that Kenyans are now claiming he was born in the USA.” [but not Texas].
I remember that my mother and father were both natural born U. S. Citizens and were married before I was conceived and remained so until my father passed away.
I remember that I registered for the ‘draft’ and have on record the original selective service number I was issued.
I remember I have college transcripts that are public records, open to any who would want to inspect them.
I have a life long paper trail that documents who I am and where I have been and what I have done for my whole life.
The one thing I have not been able to confirm is my Cherokee status. That would make me a natural born native amerian citizen of Texas, the United States and the Cherokee nation.
It’s nothing to brag about since I didn’t have any say in any of it, but it is way cool.
The icing on the DNA cake is that bit of Abraham’s genes that are mixed in there for good measure. Mazeltov!
OK, now I am warmed up but I still can’t solve algebraic equations. But I know some one who can if the issue arises.
“I remember I have college transcripts that are public records, open to any who would want to inspect them.”
I doubt that. (not that you have college transcripts, but that their open to the public)
Then assemble an economic summit of fifth graders and let them run the country.
That’s tempting. Since I don’t have access to a class of fifth graders, maybe an adventurous political science teacher could take on your challenge. Divide them into two groups, Republican and Democrat, or liberals and conservatives, and let the ideas fly.
After the 2000 election, didn’t they find that second graders in Florida had no trouble understanding a “butterfly” ballot that a bunch of Democrats cried and whined was beyond their comprehension?
Perhaps a summit of 5th graders wouldn’t be such a bad idea.
Perhaps a summit of 5th graders wouldn’t be such a bad idea.
Let me guess. They would probably say stuff like: Don’t spend more than you have and balance your budget and live within your means…The politicians should hang their heads in shame.
mp says:
Um, sorry, but corporate profits are now the highest they’ve ever been, so that canard doesn’t work either.
For someone who says there are no “simplistic answers” it seems your retort was quite simplistic. You look at one thing, corporate profits, and because they have been inflated by massive infusions of capital into the markets from the fed’s easy money monetary policy, this is supposed to be proof that a more competitive corporate tax rate would not help create jobs? Interesting perspective, but nonetheless not true. We are talking about creating jobs here, and lower corporate tax rates would cut a wide swath across all industries from coast to coast, making American products more competitive in markets around the world and more affordable at home.
Is it the answer to all of our economic woes? No, but it would be a good place to start. If you can manage to answer without saying this is a lie or a canard or otherwise cop an attitude I should like to know what would be wrong with trying it.
I think all of the cartoons are really funny!!! especially with Obama!
Why should a corporation invest in plant and equipment, or hire additional workers, when they are operating far below their current capacity to produce?
Consider capacity utilization here:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TCU
Businesses invest–and hire–when there is demand for their goods and services, demand that compels them to create additional capacity to satisfy that demand. So, be my guest. Subsidize corporations with yet another round of tax cuts. They will say “Thank you very much!” Corporate profits–and executive compensation–will soar to yet another all-time high, but it won’t compel them to increase employment or investment.
mp:
You are not taking into account the many products and services that come into the market when thousands of small and mid size corps and mom and pops are encouraged to start or expand production when cost structures and either demand or the potential of demand make for a reasonable prospect for regaining one’s investment and to ultimately realize a profit. Any scenario for robust job growth has this as a very significant component. Of course one of the most important things we can do to help make this happen is to create a level playing field with competitors in and out of the country and taxes are a big part of that.
Hal says: April 19, 2011 at 4:45 pm
“I remember I have college transcripts that are public records, open to any who would want to inspect them.”
I doubt that. (not that you have college transcripts, but that their open to the public)
=================================================================
Hal,
I doubt anyone is interested in seeing my transcripts.
Does it count that I have in effect, in a public forum, given my permission for them to open to public scrutiny?
Prov 10:19 In a multitude of words transgression is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is prudent. AMP
[I do envy your gift for brevity.]
“Subsidize corporations with yet another round of tax cuts.”
Forgive my interruption, but there’s a basic fact being ignored, mp. Tax-cuts are not subsidies. The money belongs to the company who earned it.