Well, unless you're one of our beer loving, hockey fan neighbors to the north, you're well aware that today is the final day which you can post mark your 2009 taxes in order to have them considered to be on-time by the IRS.
There's also another little thing you may have heard about happening today. It'd be your local Tea Party. I will be attending the one in Bakersfield. I will be there to be counted amongst those who believe that the increase in taxes upon the country are too high, the nationalization of private industry is immoral and that our country is headed for near certain disaster. Be sure to visit your local tea party. Take pictures, and upload them as I will be linking to ongoing Tea Parties throughout the day. Also, if you haven't already, watch the Teabagger video in the next post. Well worth your time.
God Bless America!
-UPDATE
Moonbattery has a pretty decent round up here.
Gateway Pundit has several posts relating to the Tea Parties, scroll through to find them.
Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.
13 People Have Had Their Say:
Funny, lots of people were saying for 8 long years that the country was headed for disaster. Guess what? Now it's here. Thanks, Permanent Republican Majority. You did a bang up job.
Where were all you whining pussy teabaggers when Reagan, Bush I and Bush II were pushing up the debt? I'll tell you where: Cheering them on. "Deficits don't matter." "Starve the beast!"
And where were you when Clinton started paying off the debt? I'll tell you where: Pissing your pants about blow jobs.
It's time to put on your big boy pants and grow the hell up. Times are tough, thanks to your of Greed is Good philosophy. Man up and help out.
Congratulations Anonymous! You're the winner of today's 'Ignorant Slut Award!' Since you weren't man enough to leave your name along with your opinion, we'll send the award to Algore in your stead. He along with the President are amongst the very few who are even more ignorant than you!
Amoronymous, you do realize that Congress is responsible for spending and not the President, right? Therefore the group most responsible for the reduction in deficit under Slick Willy is Republicans. I'm proud of you for recognizing that republicans in the 90's were responsible for deficit reduction.
What a surprise that your response consisted of calling me a slut and disparaging two democrats unrelated to the topic. Nice come-back, little boy. What about the point I made? Do you deny that you were not against the Reagan-Bush-Bush deficits? They weren't a problem for you back then, were they.
Ooh, Gary, you got me! What a coward I am to use "anonymous" instead of calling myself "classicconservative" and posting a profile picture of Algore so that everybody would know exactly who I am.
And Gary (thanks for not being anonymous, "Gary"), how about all that Republican congressional support for the Clinton tax increase (zero votes, to refresh your memory) which allowed the government revenue to benefit from the economic boom that followed?
As for Republican deficit reduction, the far-left wacko CATO institute said: "The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now [in 1998] spends $150 billion more than in 1995...We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget."
1) Gobs of new revenues, which would have been considerably less without the tax increase.
2) Shrinking military budget...and what were you pussy teabaggers saying about Clinton's peace dividend? "He's weakening the military!" Uh huh.
Fiscal conservatives have always been against deficits.
Few who wish to have an intelligent discussion on capitalism suggest that 'greed is good.' Everyone seeking his or her own best interest is not greed, but self preservation.
Times are tough, primarily because Democrats screwed with lending practices to provide loans to people who were unable to repay the loans. The loans were then securitized and spread throughout the financial system.
Next, people of our political persuasion do not deify or idolize any politician. We promote those who are willing to do what is necessary to govern best, by reducing the size of government. Period. All politicians (with the exception of very, very few) are evil and seek to enrich themselves and their friends.
Now to your failed points.
1.) The strong economy is directly related to marginal tax rate cuts, and the income tax reform of 1986. Don't forget that during the first coming of Obama, known as the Carter years, the tax rates were sky high, inflation was out of control and interest rates were at unparalleled highs.
2.) Since the threat of the cold war had ended, military budgets had been paired down beginning in 1990 under the first President Bush.
Without the tax reform and marginal tax rate cuts of the 80's, Clinton worshipers would have nothing to gloat about.
But this is all academic, I'm sure you're up in arms over the fact that PeeBo has tripled the federal deficit. Or is that a good thing?
So, is "Anonymous" the same commentor as "Amoronymous?" I mean, I'd like to address both of them with some thoughts.
But I don't know if I'm addressing two individuals, or one guy in his Momma's basement that uses two different posting names.
You can call him Anonymous, Amoronymous or Rick W. He's used all three.
Amoronymous, can we just call you Rick?
You have some creative quoting skills. CATO also said the following in the exact article you quote which happens to be entitled 'No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget':
"Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution."
...
" And 1993 -- the year of the giant Clinton tax hike -- was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?
Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years. Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four."
...
"Now for the bad news for GOP partisans. The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion.
We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever?
So the budget is balanced, but now comes the harder part: cutting the budget. Bill Clinton has laid down a marker in the political debate with his "save Social Security first," gambit. That theme should be turned against him and his government expansionist agenda. Congress should respond: No new government programs until we have fixed Social Security."
There's the issue, the government continued to bloat taking one step forward and two steps backward. And the federal government continues to avoid true entitlement reform. As JB said in his post on the disparity of taxes, only tax reform and entitlement reform will solve the problem.
Classica, Before we continue, let me ask this: Do you form your beliefs and opinions based on facts? And if so, are you therefore open to changing those positions based on new facts? If not, this is a waste of time.
"Do you form your beliefs and opinions based on facts? And if so, are you therefore open to changing those positions based on new facts?"
'Facts' like these?
"...where were you when Clinton started paying off the debt?"
"...the Clinton tax increase ...which allowed the government revenue to benefit from the economic boom that followed?"
Or perhaps you mean 'facts' like:
Global Warming
Minimum Wages benefit the poor and the economy
It's the Government's role to provide for the poor
The educated world call these myths. Therefore, I would venture to guess that we are at an impasse as your side of the political isle has yet to deal in fact and continues to pedal myths as reality.
Case in point.
Perhaps you mean facts like the stimulus package proposed by PeeBo and passed by a Democrat congress will create 3.5 million new jobs.
Good news: 14 months and .6 million created.
Bad news: 8 months left and 2.9 million left to go...
If you can't make it to 2.9 before Dec 31st, you could just change the terminology or definition of the jobs and claim victory! Or you could just way over inflate the actual number created. Even better, you could create nonexistent congressional districts and claim the stimulus funds created jobs there. No one will ever catch on. You guys on the left are soooo smart!
Those aren't facts. They are statements, beliefs and conclusions, plus some things unrelated to previous postings. Another non-answer.
Yes, you are open to learning and will change your beliefs as a result?
Or, No, your beliefs are what they are and nothing will change them?
Seems like a simple question.
I'm sorry that you are having such a hard time with my answers. I'll slow it down for you. There is a high probability that your definition of facts is going to be vastly different than my own as qualified above.
That being said, any intelligent person is constantly updating their view on life and their surroundings based upon new facts. I, being an intelligent person, do the same.
If you have some earth shattering new information that you think might heal me and get me thinking 'right', then feel free to email me.
BTW, if global warming isn't a fact, only a statement, you should probably let Algore in on the information. He seems to be confused.
Post a Comment