Bush Was Right to Reject Kyoto 'Fiasco'
This time they said the United States was evil for not signing the Kyoto treaty. Of course, the real reason they want us to sign it is to weaken the US. They are not getting mad at any of the 3rd world countries for not signing it. They also do not care than from its inception, experts were saying that no one was going to ever meet the requirements. So here is another time crazy lefties were wrong....besides that long list I went through...lets end this post with more failed liberal ideas:
socialism (still working on that one)
we can't beat the Russians
welfare will help
the projects will help
social programs will lower poverty
raising taxes gives the government more money
talking to terrorists makes them like us
add to the list...
Posts
11 comments:
Socialism is not a liberal idea. It is the opposite of liberalism.
No liberals said we couldn't beat the Russians? Who said that?
Welfare does help in the right circumstances. Should no help be given to people to give them a hand up? Sure it can be abused, and that should be mitigated, but welfare done right can be very good.
Projects? How is that a liberal idea?
How are you proving that social programs are not lowering poverty? Poverty was consistently declining during the Clinton administration but has risen since Clinton left office.
Raising taxes DOES give the government more money. Check the Laffer curve. Show me statistics that lowering taxes increases revenue and raising them lowers revenue.
Talking to terrorists? This is the Republics creating the frame that anything besides sending our military to fight a never-ending supply of people who hate us is "talking to terrorists [to make] them like us."
A lot could be done in the middle east by using deplomacy with Iraq's neighbors to assist in the stabilization of the origin. Most of the governments there consist of rational people with an understanding of what is in the best interests of their people. If they had a stake in the stability of Iraq and the growth of a strong economy in the region, they might well be willing to assist with training of police and military, of securing the borders, and of opposing al Qaeda. But the US is unwilling to give up any control of Iraq, any "piece of the pie". ONLY US companies get the reconstruction contracts. Imagine what other countries might be willing to do to help if they knew that it was in their best interest economically to do so.
Can't do that SIMPLY by bombing the crap out of Iraqis, whether they're terrorists, insurgents, or whatever.
Oh, and didn't I read that the US has been negotiating with "terrorists" to get them to join the process of forming a government and carrying out elections? What's up with that?
"Most of the governments [in the middle east] consist of rational people with an understanding of what is in the best interests of their people"
That is going in my book of the most stupid, naive quotes of 2005. Thanks Jim, you're a real gem.
Jim,
You are so lost and blind that I don't even want to waste my time with you right now...
I"ll find linnks later, but quite simply...
socialism...giving everyone the same amount...the government taking control ...when you bitch about the "tax cuts for the rich" you are showing you are a socialist. The Left is mad they can't take money from the rich and give it to the poor in welfare, food stamps, and social programs.
I have books with quote after quote of liberals saying how we have to stop trying to fight the cold war and figure out a way to talk to them because we will never beat them...Luckily Reagan didn't listen.
Obviously you have not read my blog at all...welfare and social programs CREATE an underclass. It doesn't help. The amount of people below the poverty level does not change but maybe a percent or two and then goes back.
Is it just a coincidence that after the Bush tax cuts the economy started to get better, every state government started getting more tax revenue and the federal government also started getting more tax revenue?
the rest of what you said is way to stupid to respond it...
See, liberal ideas might sound good, but luckily there is a Repubican party to actualy DO things. Liberal ideas hurt the country. They make us weak...which is what most of them want...because a strong America is a bully, worse than the terrorist, worse than Hitler, ect..
oh ya, that quote that Mike picked out is the type of thought process that hopefully will keep the left out of power forever
Game,
You have no clue what liberalism is and what liberals favor. You merely spout the Republic version of liberalism.
I have many times presented my liberal credentials on this site. I have never heard of liberals who believe in "giving everyone the same amount" (I presume you are talking about money and not opportunity). I presume you will offer citations of actual liberal writing to back up your assertion, and not just what Rush, Sean, BO, NewsMax, and assrocket SAY liberals favor.
Justice and fairness in taxation as opposed to cronyism may be a liberal idea, and I would be proud of that. It's not socialism. Do you know any people making millions of dollars who are financially strapped by the taxes they pay? Do you have problems with a progressive tax system?
The Left is not mad that "they can't take money from the rich and give it to the poor in welfare, food stamps, and social programs." The left AND many conservatives are mad that the rich are getting more and more advantages out of the tax system while the country goes deeper and deeper into debt every year and still doesn't have the money to upgrade the country's infrastructure, secure our chemical and nuclear facilities, educate our children, and defend our borders. They are mad that their children and grandchildren (and yours) are going to be paying for these tax cuts for years. They are mad that the Republics will cut top tier taxes and end inheritance taxes for those with estates over $5MM while ADDING 13 million Amercans to rolls of middle income families who will have their taxes increased by the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Reagan? Seems like he somehow "found a way to talk to [the Soviets]" and help end the cold war.
What do you propose to do about the poor? Let them rot? What's your plan? The poverty level was at 15.1% when Bush 41 left office. It was 11.7% when Clinton left office. It hit 12.7% last year after 4 years of Bush 43.
I believe I can link you to cites that show the country's economy does better under Democratic administrations than Republic administrations. Can you link me to cites showing that the US and states' revenues have increased DUE TO the tax cuts?
Well Jim,
Of course I don't want the poor to rot...but you seem to forget everything I say...the only answer I have is for leaders to start teaching personal responsibiity...
As for taxes...I know rich people pay lawyers to get them out of paying all the taxes they should...that is why I am in favor of a flat tax...no loop holes...everyone pays the same percentage...poor people don't have any money, so they will pay very little...as they do now..
I believe that when rich people keep their own money, they invest it and spend it, that is how everyone else gets a job...
Of course, I exagerate sometimes, and liberalism isn't full-out socialism...its really socialism-lite.
Get a graph of people living below the poverty level starting back to the 60's when all these liberal programs started and see how much things have changed...things will naturally go up and down a bit...but really there is not change...
And it can be shown that after tax cuts, the government started taking in more money..if I have the time I'll post it for you...
As far as the societs and Reagan thing, that is too obvious already, if you need quotes its not worth my time to look them up anyway.
average money states took in per capita: Take cuts started when? Start of 2002? So lets say they really started effecting the economy in 2003 (it doesn't happen over night)...
1993: 1,375.74
1994: 1,437.16
1995: 1,522.00
1996: 1,580.68
1997: 1,662.07
1998: 1,753.82
1999: 1,836.86
2000: 1,921.51
2001: 1,965.55
2002: 1,862.33
2003: 1,891.57
2004: 2,024.85
What does this mean? I'm not exactly sure...really it looks like we get screwed more and more every year...but
Presidents and Prosperity--Forbes study. Guess who's first.
This doesn't include W, but using the same factors as Forbes, CAP placed W between Truman and Nixon.
When rich people keep money they spend it--on $6,000 umbrella stands, $10,000,000 parties. Sure some of this spending employees people, but what do you have after the party? Nice memories? You could have employed the same or more people if that money were spent on, say, border guards, reduced college tuition, alternative fuel research, better highways and mass transit, better body armor, healthcare for the uninsured?
I myself lean towards a sales / consumption tax. It encourages savings and investmen AND it makes those who spend the most pay the most taxes.
Letting the poor rot. Let's think about that for a moment. The mental image is not very pretty...but... If they started rotting how many would get off their dead ass and go to work? If the govt. teat was removed how many would find milk the old fashioned way? How many Americans would suddenly find the work performed by illegal aliens is not beneath them after all? How many ghetto welfare queens would stop having unwanted children just to increase their benefits? How many junkies wouldn't be able to sell their food stamps for cash?
In the days before welfare the poor did not rot. Local communities took care of those who really deserved a helping hand to get back on their feet. Local churches helped the more unfortunate in their congregations. The hopelessly lazy and truly degenerate probably did rot. So?
Fantastic Don...nothing more to add on that one..
And I should hope Clinton's economic rating is higher than Bush's...Bush has the only terrorist attack in the history of the US mainland...Clinton only had problems that he created himself.
Wait a minute! I thought the economy was going fantastic, what with all the tax cuts for the rich generating increased revenue to the government. And all the people with 401(k)s doing so well in the market.
But Dow Jones Industrial Average:
Month High
Jan-01 10,686
Apr-01 10,973
Apr-02 10,437
Apr-03 8,588
Apr-04 10,596
Apr-05 10,601
Jan-06 10,946
Looks like six years of not much.
Post a Comment