WHY INDEED!

WHY INDEED!

Bob
Bob

June 7th, 2008, 3:18 pm #1

545 PEOPLE By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 300 million – are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses –provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 7th, 2008, 4:19 pm #2

It's simple Bob. In the last two years of Bill Clinton's presidency he had balanced budgets. So what happen? First thing Bush does is cut taxes (mostly for the rich) reducing government income- then he starts a trillion dollar war in Iraq while Republicans in congress are spending money like drunken sailors- billions of dollars in pork disguised as "earmarks"- like Ted Steven's multi-million dollar "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska or the enormously expensive drug benefit they added to Medicare to buy senior's votes in the 2004 election. So now we are trillions of dollars in debt- selling ourselves to the Chinese and killing the value of our currency which has driven up the costs of imports- like oil. After the past eight years it is laughable for Republicans called themselves the part of fiscal responsibility!
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

June 7th, 2008, 6:19 pm #3

Democrats in Congress voted along with Republicans many times . . and "pork" is not exclusive to Republicans, correct? Speaking of the Clintons, I wonder what the cost of their proposed universal health care would have come to? I wonder how many more millions of illegals (in addition to the estimated 12-20 million we now have) would have come for the free health care?

I didn't really post this to lay blame on one party or another, but rather to show that someone thinks a bit like I do: that politicians of all varieties are good at promising one thing and then doing another.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 7th, 2008, 7:42 pm #4

Well I'll point out that in 1999 & 2000 when the Democrats controlled both Congress and the Presidency- we had balanced budgets!

It's the hypocrisy of Republicans claiming the mantra of fiscal responsibility while being as bad as the Democrats ever were. The number of "earmarks"- pet project expenditures ("pork") quietly attached unrelated legislation skyrocketed to a all-time high while Republicans controlled Congress.
Reply
Like
Share

Bobby
Bobby

June 7th, 2008, 9:36 pm #5

It's simple Bob. In the last two years of Bill Clinton's presidency he had balanced budgets. So what happen? First thing Bush does is cut taxes (mostly for the rich) reducing government income- then he starts a trillion dollar war in Iraq while Republicans in congress are spending money like drunken sailors- billions of dollars in pork disguised as "earmarks"- like Ted Steven's multi-million dollar "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska or the enormously expensive drug benefit they added to Medicare to buy senior's votes in the 2004 election. So now we are trillions of dollars in debt- selling ourselves to the Chinese and killing the value of our currency which has driven up the costs of imports- like oil. After the past eight years it is laughable for Republicans called themselves the part of fiscal responsibility!
You still don't understand -- cuting taxes for people who can invest money, increases the investment pool and thus creates jobs, increases production, and increases the GDP and increases the total amount of tax revenue. OTOH, raising taxes (expecially on "the rich" that is anyone with an income over about $75K) decreases investment, decreases spending, decreases the GDP and actually decreases the total tax revenue. The best way to stimulate the economy is to decrease taxes and to decrease government spending. Since a great portion of federal government spending is on programs that transfer money from those people who are working to those who are not working and the amounts are somewhat fixed by law, spending on discresionary programs must decrease and "entitlement" programs must be greatly limited, not creating new ones. The effect of cutting taxes takes about 6 to 8 years to be noticable. Clinton's "balanced budget" was not due to his administration but to the efforts of those who proceeded him. Incidently the recverse is also true. The effect of increasing taxes also is mostly unnoticed for about 6 to 8 years.

A wise man once said that if we do not learn from the past we are doomed to repeat it. [I forget who said that.] It seems that we never learn from the past.

Hugz
Bobby
Reply
Share

Bobby
Bobby

June 7th, 2008, 9:43 pm #6

Well I'll point out that in 1999 & 2000 when the Democrats controlled both Congress and the Presidency- we had balanced budgets!

It's the hypocrisy of Republicans claiming the mantra of fiscal responsibility while being as bad as the Democrats ever were. The number of "earmarks"- pet project expenditures ("pork") quietly attached unrelated legislation skyrocketed to a all-time high while Republicans controlled Congress.
<QUOTE> Well I'll point out that in 1999 & 2000 when the Democrats controlled both Congress and the Presidency- we had balanced budgets! <UNQUOTE>

Actually it was not balanced. A lot of money from the Social Security tax went to general revenue with no provision to cover future obligations.

The effect of tax revenue from past tax cuts was still up, so rather than continue, government spending increased and so did taxes. We have been feeling thios effect over the last 3 or 4 years.

A good way to decrease government spending is to cut our "pork barrel" legislation. Both parties are guilty of this. It seems that he who brings home the most federal money will always win out over he who has the economy's best interests at heart. A former Speaker of the House [was it Tip O'Neil?] accurately stated that all politics is local. When viting, people only seem to consider "what has been done for me yesterday?"

Hugz
Bobby
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 7th, 2008, 10:26 pm #7

Well even allowing for that- it was certainly more balanced during Clinton's time than it has been with Bush.

As for taxes- they would have gone up even more if high-income people's taxes had not been cut. The idea that they used their extra money to stimulate the economy is crap- they put it into bonds, inflation hedges and overseas investments. Smart people know that the US economy is a bad investment now.
Reply
Like
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 7th, 2008, 10:45 pm #8

You still don't understand -- cuting taxes for people who can invest money, increases the investment pool and thus creates jobs, increases production, and increases the GDP and increases the total amount of tax revenue. OTOH, raising taxes (expecially on "the rich" that is anyone with an income over about $75K) decreases investment, decreases spending, decreases the GDP and actually decreases the total tax revenue. The best way to stimulate the economy is to decrease taxes and to decrease government spending. Since a great portion of federal government spending is on programs that transfer money from those people who are working to those who are not working and the amounts are somewhat fixed by law, spending on discresionary programs must decrease and "entitlement" programs must be greatly limited, not creating new ones. The effect of cutting taxes takes about 6 to 8 years to be noticable. Clinton's "balanced budget" was not due to his administration but to the efforts of those who proceeded him. Incidently the recverse is also true. The effect of increasing taxes also is mostly unnoticed for about 6 to 8 years.

A wise man once said that if we do not learn from the past we are doomed to repeat it. [I forget who said that.] It seems that we never learn from the past.

Hugz
Bobby
As I just posted above that very little of the tax-cut money rich people got went into stimulating the US economy. They were putting it in bonds, overseas stocks and hard assets for a inflation hedge as they know that with all the bonds Bush has been selling to the Chinese to get money to run the war, inflation is going to be rampant in the coming years. Bush has killed the value of the US dollar on foreign markets. It will never be as strong and respected again.

If you think Bush's economic policies are such a great success please tell me why we are on the verge of the worse recession since the 1930s? Unemployment soaring, foreclosures at record levels, fuel and food prices going through the roof. Bush's approval rating in the toilet- and this is what you call a success?
Reply
Like
Share

Bobby
Bobby

June 7th, 2008, 11:06 pm #9

NAT SAID:

<QUOTE> As I just posted above that very little of the tax-cut money rich people got went into stimulating the US economy. They were putting it in bonds, overseas stocks and hard assets for a inflation hedge as they know that with all the bonds Bush has been selling to the Chinese to get money to run the war, inflation is going to be rampant in the coming years. Bush has killed the value of the US dollar on foreign markets. It will never be as strong and respected again. <UNQUOTE>

Thats what you said. However, the facts show that more money was invested into US stocks and bonds as a result of the tax cuts. That is what stimulates the economy. Some of the money, of course, was spent. That also stimulates the economy.

<QUOTE> If you think Bush's economic policies are such a great success please tell me why we are on the verge of the worse recession since the 1930s? Unemployment soaring, foreclosures at record levels, fuel and food prices going through the roof. Bush's approval rating in the toilet- and this is what you call a success? <UNQUOTE>

As I've stated before, and as the facts indicate, it takes up to eight years for the effect of reduced taxation (and increased taxation) to be onvious to the economy. Study economic history. The main raeson for the current the current stagflation [it is not a recession, much less "worse recession since the 1930s"], and unemployment is wasteful government spending (by Congress, incidently, and both parties are at fault). The reason for the foreclosures is that people were duped into purchasing housing that their incomes could not afford. The reason for the fuel cost increases is our lack of the use of non-fossil fuels for electricity generation (environmentalists refuse to "allow" nuclear plants, and the unpopularity of wind generation). The main reason for "food prices going through the roof" is the media driven mania toward making ethenol from corn. I blame the media hype for the President's "approval rating in the toilet". People will believe whatever is told to the often enough and loud enough whether it is true or not.

Study the economy over a long period of time, and you will realize that this is just another Presidential second-term media activity. It's more obvious when the incumbant President is Republican since the media in general supports the tax and spend liberal Democrat policies.

Hugz
Bobby
Reply
Share

Bobby
Bobby

June 7th, 2008, 11:38 pm #10

Well even allowing for that- it was certainly more balanced during Clinton's time than it has been with Bush.

As for taxes- they would have gone up even more if high-income people's taxes had not been cut. The idea that they used their extra money to stimulate the economy is crap- they put it into bonds, inflation hedges and overseas investments. Smart people know that the US economy is a bad investment now.
NAT: <QUOTE> Well even allowing for that- it was certainly more balanced during Clinton's time than it has been with Bush. <UNQUOTE>

My point exactly -- Clinton was reaping the benefits of the previous administration, just as Bush is reaping the harm caused by Clinton's administration.

<QUOTE> As for taxes- they would have gone up even more if high-income people's taxes had not been cut. <UNQUOTE>

And who wants taxes to go up? I want the tax rate to go down and that will cause the tax revenue collected to go up. I know that this is counter-intuative, but it is simple economic science.

<QUOTE> The idea that they used their extra money to stimulate the economy is crap- they put it into bonds, inflation hedges and overseas investments. Smart people know that the US economy is a bad investment now. <UNQUOTE>

Then how come some people who are not "smart" (the group you aparently think I am part of) are making money on the stock market even this past Friday with an overall drop in the Dow of about 400 points? I made nearly 2% on my investments in May -- this would be about 24% on an anualized basis. The DJ lost points during the same period. Unfortunately a lot of ordinary people who invest based on the advise of media pundits, rather than on a careful study of the economy and their investments, lost a lot. Incidently, bonds and inflation hedges do work to stimulate the economy, as do some foreign investments (obviously not all).

The most effective way to stimulate the economy is to control ansd reduce government spending, and to open up free trade. The setting up of artificial trade barriers causes our productivity to stagnate and the price of our products to increase on the open free market, thus causing a negative effect on our economy. If you believe that trade barriers "protect" US jobs, consider how the entire US steel industry failed under government protective tarifs and compare it with the resurrection of the US steel inductry under Japanese companies today who build modern plants. Our plants became old and non-productive (and hence the products too expensive) because the government had a policy of "protecting" US industry and jobs. Free enterprise would have forced the plants in the US to be more efficiently run simply to remain competative. The same can be said of the automobile industry. GM, Ford, and Chrystler close plants in the US while Japanese, Korean, and German companies build efficient, modern plants in the US. Chocolate is made in Canada, Mexico, and elsewhere because the protective tariffs on sugar make it cost prohibitive to manufacture it here. A hue and cry went up in Hershey PA because Hershey is making product in Mexico and the US. Its stupid to realize that cocao processed in PA can be shipped to Mexico and have sugar (and heat) addred there, and then reshipped in liquid form back to PA and have the product finished here much cheaper than if all the work were done here. Its not the cost of labor driving that train, its the protective tarifs. Incidently, sugar cane (and I suspect sugar beets as well) are no longer grown in the US. Its all imported. Our protective tarifs drove that industry away from the US. Free trade actually creates work -- protective government policies cost jobs in the long run.

This is why I must support people who think ahead after studying the past rather than those who simply listen to the results of easily manipulated polls.

Hugz
Bobby
Reply
Share