The Times, citing unnamed Afghan officials said the payments total millions of dollars and go into a secret fund that Daudzai and Karzai have used to pay Afghan lawmakers, tribal elders and even Taliban commanders to secure their loyalty.
“It’s basically a presidential slush fund,” one Western official told the paper. “Daudzai’s mission is to advance Iranian interests.”
Iran has consistently viewed the presence of the U.S. in Afghanistan as a threat, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has urged countries in the region to cooperate with one another, instead of looking to the U.S.
Karzai’s comments came the same day the Iranian embassy in Kabul slammed the Times report as “ridiculous and insulting,” according to the AFP.
“Such baseless speculations are being spread by some Western media outlets in order to confuse public opinion and damage the strong ties between the governments and nations of the Islamic republics of Afghanistan and Iran,” the embassy said in a statement
Expect more of this since the deadline for withdrawal has been set. The next Fight there will be between Iran and Al Q/Taliban for the turf.
Hard Right: hi, What is the REAL DEAL NOW, is that we have here AMERICANS in their core beliefs,who are working hard in keeping AMERICA SAFE from ALL kinds of subversives attacks inside and
from outsides places where HATE is cultivated as a religion, and teach like science:
It’s exactly the right time for all AMERICANS to reach in their CORE BELIEF, and pause to REFLEX on the values of this BEAUTIFUL UNIQUE AMERICA; THEY must decide to stand for AMERICA,
which is calling them, and ask all if they truly can say to the whole WORLD,
I am an AMERICAN,and I will protect my COUNTRY who gave me FREEDOM,and is demanding
me to RETURN to the real values that so many young and old spilled their blood for me
and my loved one, before the forces of destruction succede in time to DESTROY
WHAT is the REAL AMERICA. THE QUEST to destroy is underway as we speak, and they are like a SNAKE,moving underneath our feet ,silent and confident, let’s crush it now,
Hard Right
14 years ago
DaNang67, goosebumps?
Try dry heaving.
Hard Right
14 years ago
Bees, that is the goal. They have shown the American people who they really are because they thought it was their time and that they could not be stopped. They are wrong. Enough people are standing up to fight and hopefully, the trend will continue.
@bees (#45): I am aware of the high esteem with which Hard Right is held on this discussion group. To my knowledge, I have always addressed him respectfully. I’ve never accused him of promulgating “lies” or being “delusional” or used similar derogatory language. I do offer rejoinders when he critiques my points of view, but, hopefully, that’s appropriate in a public forum such as this.
@danang (#46). The Democratic Party today is “far to the left” of FDR? That’s preposterous. Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower would be perfectly comfortable in today’s Democratic Party. Today’s GOP would refer to Nixon and Eisenhower as “RINOs.”
Why do I support Fiorina but not Whitman and why do I support Brown over Whitman? I respect Fiorina, because she rose to become the CEO of an iconic American mega-corporation, with an established and tough culture. This required a ton of political and interpersonal skills. Whitman took the reins of a start up and pretty much did things her way. Whitman has spent (so far) $140 million of her own money not because she wants to be Governor, but because she wants to be President. Were she to be elected as California’s Governor, her first priority with every decision, would be to consider how it will play in Presidential Primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc.
The Governor moonbeam thing is just a catchy label. Jerry Brown did as good a job of running an ungovernable city (Oakland) as was possible. He did a good, workmanlike job as Attorney General. What I just loved was the moment in the first debate when he was asked something about whether he could improve his performance over the time when he was governor, as a young man, half a lifetime ago. He previously spent a lot of time, for example, laying the groundwork for a Presidential run (see Whitman, above). Brown gave two answers: One, he’ll be 74 years old in 2012. Two, now that he’s married, he won’t be carousing around at night, “closing all the bars in Sacramento,” as he did before.
I just loved the frankly refreshing, self deprecating, candor.
What Brown wants to do now is to become as respected in California political lore as his father, who is credited with building California’s nation’s best University system, its water supply system, its highway system. I view the future of the UC system as one of the top issues facing California, and I have far greater trust in Brown than in Whitman, on this accord.
I also think it’s very important that California continue its experiment with effectively ratifying the Kyoto Treaty on greenhouse gas emissions. There is so much heated opinion, but no real facts, regarding the idea that it would be an economic calamity to “go green,” on one hand, or it would create a thriving “green economy, with millions of new green jobs,” on the other hand. Let’s just try it, in a single state, and see how it works. It’s a bold experiment — just the sort of thing which California, of all the states, has the culture and state of mind to attempt. If California were to go down the tubes, that would be a valuable lesson for the rest of the nation. If, on the other hand, California succeeds, that would be valuable information for the rest of the nation, also. Whitman wants to kill this. Brown is enthusiastic about supporting it. We’ll find out what the voters think, come next Tuesday. If we Californians decide that we want to hang ourselves, shouldn’t we be allowed to do it?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@mata (#44). Nice commentary. Of course, I’ll want to respond, but it’ll have to wait until the next time I awaken in the middle of the night and have an hour of protected quiet time to reply.
Hard Right
14 years ago
Again Larry, you show you are in fact a liberal incapable of deep thinking on political issues.
Let me help you see why you ARE a liberal.
You are for obamacare.
You are for CA going with the Kyoto Agreement
You think obama is a moderate who is governing from the center
You vote for a loony leftist (communist really) mainly because you think he will do good things for the university system while spending like mad.
You have little understanding of the impact terrorism has on the nation.
You think the REPUBLICAN party is the extreme party.
You basically blame Capitalism for the housing/lending collapse and not the true culprits-dems.
You think the self discredited David Brooks is a Conservative or Republican.
BTW, I really don’t care what you think of me. Your judgement of character is severely lacking for the most part.
Randy
14 years ago
openid I see you are now clairvoyant now. You already know who is running for president in 2012! Actually, Both Eisenhower and Nixon would not be comfortable with a socialist Democratic party. Both were supports of free enterprise.
I am amazed at how far you have progressed since the post where you could not see how a terrorist attack on Long Beach would affect California or the US.
Please send me the winning numbers for Wednesday’s Power Ball drawing!
openid ayol.com/runnswim,: YES SR, I believe you are very respectfull and I respect you also,
MAY I suggest that you answer MATA ‘s comment sooner than later, she might be absent then unable to get back as fast as she would be able. bye
@randy (#58), I’d like to respond to the charge that today’s Democratic Party is, in any sense, any more “socialistic” than it’s been since the Roosevelt years. I’ve asked for a listing of the top 3 “Marxist” legislative initiatives or actions initiated by or supported by Obama, since taking office. I’ll broaden this to ask for the top 3 “socialist” actions intiated by or supported by Obama.
If you can get specific, then I think we could have an interesting discussion. It very hard to respond to glittering generalities, labels, and slogans.
With regard to:
I am amazed at how far you have progressed since the post where you could not see how a terrorist attack on Long Beach would affect California or the US.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have said that I consider the port of Long Beach to be the number one most likely location for a terrorist nuclear explosion. I can’t for the life of me see how this could be interpreted as saying that a terrorist attack on Long Beach would not affect CA or the nation. Clearly, it would have a devastating effect: among other things, it’s the largest West Coast port, and therefore the most important port of entry for Asian imports ranging from automobiles to electronics, as well as exports to Asia.
P.S. Whatever Jerry Brown is (and he’s one of the more interesting politicians of our time), he’s certainly no communist! I suggest that people read about communism and understand it, before carelessly misusing the label. Brown isn’t a “communist” and Whitman isn’t a “Nazi.”
Here’s a very nice, concise summary of Brown’s career:
Sacrosanct tax breaks, including deductions on mortgage interest, remain on the table just weeks before the deficit commission issues recommendations on policies to pare back with the aim of balancing the budget by 2015.
The tax benefits are hugely popular with the public but they have drawn the panel’s focus, in part because the White House has said these and other breaks cost the government about $1 trillion a year.
Sacrosanct tax breaks, including mortgage-interest deductions, remain on the table just weeks before the deficit commission issues recommendations on ways to balance the budget by 2015. Alan Murray and David Weidner discuss. Also, Jennifer Levitz discusses a leading national tea-party group that is laying plans to maintain pressure on new members of Congress after the Nov. 2 vote.
At stake, in addition to the mortgage-interest deductions, are child tax credits and the ability of employees to pay their portion of their health-insurance tab with pretax dollars. Commission officials are expected to look at preserving these breaks but at a lower level, according to people familiar with the matter.
I guess this will not be considered a tax increase either since discontinuing the Bush tax cuts is not considered a tax increase!
Randy
14 years ago
I wonder what will happen to all of those foreclosed houses that no one will buy when the home mortgage interest deduction goes away. This will push people away from home ownership towards rental units. I guess that instead of helping my sons buy a house, I will buy the house and rent it to them. Then I can take the mortgage interest deduction. I guess, I will have to rent my home from my sons! I can rent the houses and include the utilities in the rent. That way, the utilities will also be deductable. I can also reduce the rent if my sons mow the lawn and shovel the snow. Oh, well! I guess the government knows best!
@randy: You realize that the deficit commission has a bipartisan membership? Equal numbers of Dems and Republicans.
Greenspan has endorsed letting ALL the Bush tax cuts expire. Go back to the tax structure of the 90s, which was drastically reduced, compared to the tax structure in place from the end of WWII to 1982, and that’s all that would need to be done to get very close to the 2015 goals, even without any spending cuts.
You realize, of course, that the Bush tax cuts were a massive, deficit-producing Keynesian stimulus, as they were paid for not with spending cuts, but, rather, with money borrowed from the Chinese creditors featured in your youtube video (#60).
The WWII greatest generation was the greatest, not only because they won the war, but because they taxed themselves (91% marginal tax rate until Kennedy; 70% marginal tax rate until Reagan, with confiscatory estate taxes, etc) to pay off the war debt.
Today, we fight wars, cut taxes, and pay for both by putting them on our Chinese Platinum VISA card.
You want to prevent the scenario in your youtube video? Simple, just allow the Bush tax cuts to sunset on schedule and pay our own bills, rather than putting them on the tab.
The secret is simple: Everybody has to give up something. But everything important would remain intact.
The big problem with this whole idea is that someone else decides what everyone has to give up, and that same person decides what is important enough to remain intact.
Now, the question is: Who are you supporting that would decide all of that?
I can tell you right now that I don’t trust any democrat in any office to make that decision for me. Do you?
Greg
14 years ago
@ johngalt, #67:
I can tell you right now that I don’t trust any democrat in any office to make that decision for me. Do you?
I guess that’s the common problem we all have that comes from putting our partisan ideologies ahead of common sense and logic.
Do you trust any particular republican to address and resolve the issue of deficit and debt, with the best interests of the all Americans equally in mind?
Randy
14 years ago
These folks still do not get that raising taxes actually reduces tax revenue. Ask the folks in MD and NY. The Kennedy, Raegan, Bush tax cuts actually increased tax revenue as well as increasing GDP. Taxes reduces the amount of capital available for investment. Read the collums by Dr Sowell and Dr. Williams. Both of these economists put this issue in very simple terms.
Greg
14 years ago
It’s not that I don’t get it. It’s that don’t believe it. Cutting taxes does stimulate the economy, but the cost is additional debt. That’s what’s happened on each occasion that we’ve done it.
It’s because of the democrats’ spending, people say. Well, they’ve got the spending part right, but it sure hasn’t all been the democrats. Take a close look at the defense budget. Also ask yourself what social spending republicans are willing to cut, while taking full credit for that cutting.
It’s been calculated that an extension of the Bush tax cuts, plus additional tax cuts republicans have proposed, would diminish federal tax revenues by $4 trillion over the next decade.
There’s no way on God’s green earth that this would add anywhere near $4 trillion in revenues back, by way of increased economic activity.
What we’d most likely see would be a further shift of wealth upward, at the cost of another huge jump in the national debt.
@randy: What you say (#69) is simply not true! The reason tax revenue increases is that the economy grows. When the economy grows, tax revenues increase. The economy always grows, no matter what the tax rate, except during temporary recessions, which are generally short-lived. For example, the economy is now growing and tax revenues are now increasing, since Bush left office. You want to credit Obama for this? I didn’t think so.
Now, this is the issue, what portion of economic growth is directly or indirectly related to tax cuts? Answer is, very little. Conservative economists (as well as liberals) have studied this issue for decades. The answer is that there’s never been a tax cut since Kennedy which returned more than 30 cents on the dollar to the treasury, in terms of increased tax receipts. This means that 70 cents of every tax cut dollar is permanently lost to the treasury and must be borrowed (e.g. from China) to make up for the loss.
The only relevant metric is not gross tax receipts or gross revenue or gross debt, but is the debt to GDP ratio. If I’m 100,000 dollars in debt, but I’ve got an annual income of 200,000, then I’ve got a debt to income ratio of 0.5 and I’m really not in a lot of trouble. If I only have an income of 100,000 dollars, then my debt to income ratio is 1.0 and I’m in more trouble. If I only have an income of 50,000, then my debt to income ratio is 2.0, and I’m in still more trouble.
Debt to GDP ratio steadily fell under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter (going from 1.2 to 0.35). It close to doubled after Reagan’s tax cuts, under Reagan and Bush (going back up close to 0.7). Then it came down, when Clinton raised taxes (to about 0.55) then it went back up, following the Bush tax cuts (to 0.82). Under Obama, it has continued to rise (from 0.82 to 0.9), but only a tiny part of this was owing to the incremental difference between the Obama “stimulus” ($750 billion) and the stimulus the GOP had proposed (about $500 billion).
The concept that cutting taxes actually raises revenue enough to pay for the lost revenue from the tax cuts has been completely discredited. No one believes this anymore — not even conservative pundits and certainly not conservative economists.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Hard Right
14 years ago
The concept that cutting taxes actually raises revenue enough to pay for the lost revenue from the tax cuts has been completely discredited. No one believes this anymore — not even conservative pundits and certainly not conservative economists.
And you wonder why I call you delusional? Oy. When it comes to politics, you are very much so.
Greg, the deficit increased due to spending and not the tax cuts. It’s a pretty basic concept that you really just can’t grasp as a liberal.
the deficit increased due to spending and not the tax cuts. It’s a pretty basic concept that you really just can’t grasp as a liberal.
@Hard (who wrote the above erroneous claim, # 72): Please read the following, and then provide any data whatsoever to refute the preposterous claim that tax cuts pay for themselves and don’t massively drive up the debt burden.
Just look at the debt to GDP ratio. There is this great myth that Reagan’s tax cuts grew the economy. No, the economy grew because it recovered from the recession at the end of Carter years. There is always a business cycle. Always has been. Always will be. Did Reagan leave the country better off, economically? Well, he doubled the debt ratio, before Clinton raised taxes and brought it down. And then Bush borrowed still more money to finance HIS tax cuts, and we increased the debt ratio by 50%. Bush and Reagan tried to buy prosperity by borrowing massive amounts of money, to avoid the distasteful need to ask Americans to pay for their own government (and later, under Bush, for their own wars). I bought a bit of prosperity myself with a home equity loan, a few years back, but now I’ve got to pay the piper. The government is no different.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Randy
14 years ago
Increased taxes changes tax payer behavior. I showed you in post #63 what changes I would make to avoid eliminating the home interest deduction. Why do you think that others would not change their behavior?
Think of taxes this way: A farmer in the valley has a gasoline powered water pump that is the only source of water for your vegetable fields. To reach full productivity, the pump needs to run for 12 hours per day. This requires 1000 gal of gasoline per month at $1/ gal. At full production, he can afford the gasoline each month from the sale of the vegetables you produce. He pays for housing, clothing, food transportation and other required expenses and has a few dollars left over for discretionary spending.
Now, the tax collector wants $50 per month so he can travel around the countryside collecting the taxes. The governor needs $100 per month to give to needy people in the city. Other government officials need $200 per month for their activities.
The farmer is now short $350 or 350 gal of gasoline per month to achieve full productivity. In the vegetable farming business, this may mean he has to cut back the area he is farming to 50% of the full potential of his farm. The farmer pays his required expenses, cutting back on clothing, transportation and food. He likely stops discretionary spending all together.
By losing 35% of his fuel for the pump, the farmer likely reduces his productivity by 50%. (The amount of water may not be directly proportional to productivity.) He no longer supports other businesses because he no longer has the money to buy their products or services. The money he would have spent was taken by the government as taxes. The people the farmer normally would patronize have to cut back their expenditures, too, since they do not have as much money to spend. If the government takes an equal amount from all the people in the valley, all of the productivity in the valley is greatly reduced.
Now, if the government economizes and reduces the taxes by 50%, all of the productivity in the valley increases. If the government uses the taxes to improve farm to market roads, the government may actually improve productivity again. Improved productivity of the farmer improves productivity for all in the valley. If taxes are a percentage of net productivity, the tax base is larger generating more tax revenue as a result of the tax cut to everyone in the valley.
If you take the time to read about the Mellon tax cuts in the reference above this should be very clear. My 9 year old nephew understands this concept as well as some of our more adept Presidents.
There is tons of information out there written by expert economists. You need to want to learn!
@Randy: Many a beautiful theory has been ruined by an ugly fact.
What is the number one plank in the GOP’s 2010 campaign?
The deficit. The debt. Generational theft. Call it what you will.
The ugly fact is that Reagan’s tax cuts DOUBLED the debt ratio, after 35 consecutive years of the debt ratio falling under high tax rate administrations, including Carter’s.
Then Clinton raised taxes and we again started paying down the debt ratio.
Then Bush cut taxes and the debt ratio ballooned by 50%. In contrast, the debt ratio has only increased another 10% on Obama’s watch.
Of course tax cuts help improve prosperity — at the margins. But it’s not paid for by enough increased economic activity to pay for the tax cuts. It’s paid for by borrowing money and increasing the debt load.
None of your linked references considers the issue that tax cuts massively drive up debt. So, do your care about debt, after all, or is it just Obama-bashing campaign rhetoric? If the issue is deficits and debt and generational theft, then the number one cause of that debt is insufficient taxation to pay for government spending. It’s very nice to theorize that it might be possible to reduce government spending by a trillion dollars a year, or whatever, but it’s never happened and it never will happen. On the other hand, all we need to do to solve most of our debt related problems is to let the Bush tax cuts (which never should have been granted in the first place and which have greatly contributed to our current debt miseries) sunset.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Randy
14 years ago
Why do you think Yahoo only paid 3.5% tax? Why do you think US Companies with international business move their HQ off shore? Higher taxes change behavior. Raise taxes AND WATCH THE TAX BASE GET SMALLER!
@randy: You provide isolated anecdotes, but we have a macro economy.
I’ll ask you again: are deficits and the debt the big issue which the GOP is currently making it out to be?
The ugly fact, once again, is that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts produced exploded debt ratio. Every other President since WWII either raised taxes or kept them stable and reduced the debt ratio. Save Kennedy, who reduced Eisenhower’s marginal tax rate of 91% down to 70%. And conservatives scream that raising marginal rates to 39% would constitute socialism.
You suggest that bringing tax rates back to where they were in the 1990s (as advocated by Alan Greenspan) will wreck the economy? No, it won’t, but it will raise $1.7 trillion in tax revenues to largely solve the debt problem.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Randy
14 years ago
You can lead a donky to water, you can not make him think!
Larry, you are a veritable font of facts. It’s too bad that so many of them just aren’t true. You rely a lot on sources that promote your world view.
I’m sure that I too could find a hagiography of Jerry and his dad. Someone might even credit old Pat Brown with doing more to create the California Master Plan than just signing it into law… but that would be wrong (sorry… love that quote). And Moonbeam DID turn Oakland into a dynamic utopia, I know. What a guy. When you elect him the UC system can DOUBLE the number of administrators to enhance the students’ multicultural experience of social progress towards… something… in the great American tradition of… Noam Chomsky and Timmy Leary.
I can tell that there’s no point in trying to explain that Reagan doubled revenue to the government by cutting taxes because you’ll tell me that’s just because GDP increased! Well, duh! Never mind. You’ll refuse to accept that spending doesn’t necessarily have to increase. Ever since the Congress adopted base-line budgeting, every reduction in the rate of increase in spending for any program has caused apoplectic shrieks that “programs are being cut!!”
I’m a little surprised that the deep cuts in Social Security under Obama aren’t being shouted about by Republican politicians. I’m lying. I’m not really surprised. It’s the only way to handle the Social Security mess since they killed the Bush plan.
Firstly, name one Democrat in office right now who hasn’t either pushed for increased spending or fallen in line in lockstep with the liberal/progressives in charge/
Do you trust any particular republican to address and resolve the issue of deficit and debt, with the best interests of the all Americans equally in mind?
I could name several, including Ryan from Wisconsin. The problem is that, yes, the main GOP leadership isn’t much of a trade-off from the Democrat leadership, but the new blood that is coming in for the GOP are generally conservative in principle, and quite a bit different than what we’ve had for the past 10 years or so. Your problem, and the other liberal loonies, is that they are so much more conservative than what we’ve had that you all consider them “extreme”. I consider them students of Reagan and his ideology, and I support that.
Sooner or later the dingbats on the left will realize that you cannot give everybody, everything they want, as supplied by the government, because there won’t be enough people actually working to pay for it all.
James Madison, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fishermen introduced to the First Congress said,
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
Prior to that, in Federalist 41, Madison wrote,
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.”
Madison’s incredible forethought underscores exactly what all Americans are facing today as we move into the November 2nd Election.
Hard Right
14 years ago
Just look at the debt to GDP ratio. There is this great myth that Reagan’s tax cuts grew the economy. No, the economy grew because it recovered from the recession at the end of Carter years.
What brought about the recession? Tax increases and govt. meddling in the free market. What ended it? Tax decreases and deregulation.
There is always a business cycle. Always has been. Always will be. Did Reagan leave the country better off, economically? Well, he doubled the debt ratio, before Clinton raised taxes and brought it down.
Wrong yet again. You are too smart to be so dense, Larry.
If you suddenly double what you are taking in, but quadruple your spending beyond that, the debt goes up!
If you cut taxes then spend way beyond what you bring in, THAT IS WHAT DRIVES UP DEBT! This is so basic. Am I using words too big for you? Seriously!
Larry, the Dems controlled the House during Reagan’s time and he basically cut a deal with them. They would allow his defense buildup if they got their way on domestic spending.
It really amuses me when people give Clinton credit for the “elimination of the deficit”. Clinton didn’t eliminate anything-especially thru raising taxes. The GOP did when they controlled congress. I remember how he fought them tooth and nail until they discovered what the GOP wanted was popular with the people. It was only then they “supported” the reforms. After that the GOP lost it’s way and became dem lite. It was the reason GOP turnout was low the last few elections. Republicans and Conservatives were disgusted with them. Hell, the dems lost control of congress for the first time in 40 years partly because of the masive tax increase they instituted. The GOP lost control because they acted like dems, but not as bad as the current batch. That is why we will see the GOP take the House for certain. I’m guessing 55 seats to the GOP.
Heltau
14 years ago
@Old Trooper 2: one of the BEST jokes I have heard in the last 20 years.
Old Trooper 2
14 years ago
@ Heltau, never read the Federalist Papers? Someone neglected your education maybe? Or is Das Kapital more your style?
Gregory_Dittman
14 years ago
I’m sure people can tweak the numbers, but what would a balanced budget really look like? Here is my rough draft of the $2.381 trillion budget (including Social Security income) 2010 budget.
Military 23% $547.63 billion
State Department 2%+$4.08 billion for $51.7 billion
Debt 20% $476.2 billion
Infrastructure 14% $333.34 billion
Homeland Security 3% 71.43 billion
War on Terror 5% $119.05 billion
Disaster Fund 1% $23.81 billion
Department of Justice 1% $23.81 billion
Veterans Affairs, unemployment insurance, federal employee disability and GI Bill 16%+$7.17 billion $388.13 billion
Department of the Interior 1% $23.81 billion
EPA 1%-$11.25 billion $12.58 billion
NASA and National Science Foundation 2% $47.62 billion
Commerce, Labor, Small Business, Agriculture, GSA, “other agencies according to Wikipedia” and Energy 5% -$11.37 billion $107.68 billion
Treasury, executive and congressional branch staff 1% $23.81 billion
Railroad pension $6.42 billion
Social Security Disability Insurance 5% +$4.95 billion $124
Notes:
National debt. Although it is a major increase, it would still take over 30 years to pay off the debt.
Infrastructure. The American Society of Engineers claims the U.S. had to spend $1.7 trillion on the core infrastructure in 2007 just to keep it stabilized. The total tab was between $8-$9 trillion.
Department of Interior gets a $11.81 billion boost. Many federal parks are hurting for cash. Since many conservatives hunt, fish, camp and hike in federal forests and BLM, they will probably welcome the increase.
The EPA gets a $2.06 billion boost.
The military gets just over a $2 billion boost.
NASA and the National Science Foundation (merge) gets a $21.92 billion increase.
Commerce, Labor, Small Business, Agriculture, GSA, “other agencies according to Wikipedia” and Energy get $8.41 billion increase.
In 2010, veteran benefits came to $154.98 billion, federal civilian disability came to $71.14 billion, unemployment insurance came to $162.01 billion.
I left out some stuff including other federal pensions and the $60 billion in food stamps program. The reason I left the other federal pension money out, is because I couldn’t find any information on how much the federal goverment pays. The pension money I did find I included. I left out the food stamp program, because the budget would actually increase the number of people working, plus some people think that food stamps for abled bodied adults is a waste of money.
I also couldn’t find the dissection of the $940 billion in the payroll tax. The payroll tax is used to pay for Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. Since I couldn’t seperate it out, I just left all the money in and dumped the programs I didn’t want.
Definitely disgraceful. They should have just ignored or or contacted the authorities. No matter what, for any man to place his foot on a woman’s head while she is on the ground is in my mind an act of extreme cowardice.
B-Rob
14 years ago
@ bees —
You may have not been raised this way, but I was raised not to hit or even touch a woman in a physically hostile manner. Here you have two large men grabbing on a woman, pushing her to the ground, putting her head on a curb and . . . stepping on her head?! How can you defend that?
Never mind . . . I know how you defend it. If your side does it, it simply is not wrong or, in the alternative, she deserved it. You took the position that this woman deserved to have her head stepped on by a 200 pound plus fat guy.
msbees re #88 I QUESTION the past,present and future credibility of ANY woman who condones what she sees on that video.
What say you?
Nan G
14 years ago
According to the Louisville Courier Journal, “Lauren Valle of MoveOn.org approached Rand Paul and tried to give him an “employee of the month award” from Republicorp…a fake business MoveOn created…..
Not good what was done.
She did NOT do anything that justified pushing her to the ground and getting her neck stood on.
I don’t know if Rand’s ”fans” are as rabid as his dad Ron’s ”fans,” but it looks like they are.
Many people who back Ron Paul are absolutely nuts!
And more than a few are registered as Republicans…..even though Ron became a Republican only recently.
I think any fan of an opponent who tries to come into close contact with the candidate competing with his might be in line for being muscled away.
But this was too much.
Bodyguards should have prevented her from ever even seeming to be a threat.
Both sides, in this Paul/Conway race seem into political theater for the cameras.
B-Rob, AND Rich Wheeler, AH AH very ASTUTE just like a rodent would,well 2 of them;
I will say to that, that my computer does’nt help me to view too long UTUB,
I saw a bit of that yes, but did not Identified the person as a woman, or a man,
or an opponant of RAND PAUL, and could not get the real story, because of the reason
I previously mentioned; SO you are doing exactly what you accuse me of taking a stand for,
without knowing my reason, and I tell you my reason for the comment I made was to respond on your own arrogance saying”stay classy conservatives”, even that was enough for me to jump in.
not the video. YOU tried and failed your dirty tricks
Randy
14 years ago
There have been several interpretations of what happened that were not captured in the video. Some people believed that this woman was a security threat. I don’t know because I was not there.
While I was in Iraq, our behavior was guided by the rules of engagement developed by higher command. When you are dealing with irrational people who may be girded with an explosive belt, you look at people differently. There were many times where Iraqi civilians exhibited behavior that could have been interpreted as potentially dangerous to me or others. When the danger was only to me, I took more time to evaluate the behavior before I acted. When others were involved who could be affected, I had to react much more quickly. I was lucky I never made a mistake. I was 1/2 of a trigger traverse of killing a young man when I saw he had a rock instead of a grenade.
If you look at the ads the left has aired about Ron Paul, some accused him of some scary things. The claims are outlandish. Ads like this raise the level of awareness and may cause over reactions. Here is a woman obviously wearing a bad wig rushing towards a person who has been vilified by the media and the ads is stopped by bystanders. In the heat of the moment and during the struggle, a foot was placed on her upper back and neck to subdue her. On Monday morning after the Sunday game, this is unacceptable behavior. At the time, who can say what the proper action was?
Nan G
14 years ago
Re:#90.
Two very interesting stories.
I wonder just how much of this we will see?
And the military votes are being ditched, in several states, too.
B-Rob, Rich Wheeler, Go back and read my comment again. and read yours. and
analyze your own behavior, before insulting any one here, including me.
Missy
14 years ago
Let’s see, this gal’s name is Lauren Valle, according to a police blotter:
• Lauren Valle (W/F, DOB 5/4/87, 415 Shorewood Drive East, Falmouth, MA)
It is quite common for residents of Falmouth, MA to attend debates in Kentucky especially when that resident just might be, say……a MoveOn.Org employee, per CNN’s piece they did this a.m.
Here’s part of a comment she made that I find interesting. Why the “we’re” where’s the rest of them?
“We’re here to present Rand Paul with the ‘Employee of the Month’ award
According to a live report I saw earlier today, witnesses told police she rushed Rand Paul as he was getting out of the car and heading into the debate, that’s when people outside of the debate pulled off her wig and wrestled her to the ground. Untouched was the “I’m a Rand Fan” sticker on her red hooded sweatshirt, the video showed.” Let’s assume that was also part of her disquise, I’m sure the police investigation will figure that out promptly, until then we can assume. Anyway, they certainly did mess up her opportunity to get close enough to him to snag a pic of her with Rand Paul and that award. THANK GOD SHE DIDN’T HAVE A WEAPON or mace or something.
What is known at this point is that the man that wrestled her to the curb, in a move that was less agressive than what I’ve seen in grade school wrestling meets BTW, was a Rand Paul supporter, unknown at this point is who put his foot on her. Known is that people told him to knock it off while others were calling for the police. That would be calling for police because of the aggressive actions perpetrated by one Lauren Valle, not those that subdued her and brought her to the ground.
Wonder what she might have been doing in May. Ah, look at this, she was visiting Lafourche Parish, LA with friends:
Activists Face Felony Charges
The seven had been seen in the area for the past week and had been repeatedly warned by law enforcement not to hamper clean up operations and not to trespass. Greenpeace is known for pre-planning and coordinating similar protests to bring attention to environmental issues. Pictures of the vandalism appeared on the Greenpeace website within minutes of the arrest of the activists.
All seven will be transported to the Lafourche Parish Detention Center where they will be booked with unauthorized entry of a critical infrastructure (R.S. 14:62.3) and unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling (R.S. 14:62.3). The New Orleans Joint Terrorism Taskforce is reviewing today’s incident and all seven could face additional charges.
Thank you for that information. One has to wonder what would happen to a person who tried to rush up to a democrat, like say, Pelosi or Reid. The threats of violence seen in recent years, particularly those targeted at conservatives and the GOP, is escalating. How soon before that person rushing up to a politician is not brandishing an award, but a weapon. I’m sure that was on the minds of the people who wrestled the woman to the ground.
The loonies that visit here like to imply that violence is one sided, from the conservatives, and continually deny or ignore the proof of it from the left. One such figure here has even implied that since the recent act took place, that conservatives are all supportive of everything that happened. And yet, they still discount various acts by the liberal/progressive crowd and claim conservatives are the violent ones.
As for me, whatever else this woman deserved, she didn’t deserve to have her head/shoulder stomped on. That is the regrettable part, not the wrestling of her to the ground.
When I hear the loonies here denounce all of the violent and threatening acts by the left, then I can start believing that they truly are against violence, regardless of some people’s claims here that they were taught never to hit a woman.
Just a quick scary thought:
If Marco Rubio had never made the decision to run, we’d all probably be rooting for Charlie Crist right now!
I apologize for the goosebumps.
Surprise
Karzai Admits Receiving ‘Bags of Money’ From Iran
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10/25/karzai-admits-receiving-bags-money-iran/
Expect more of this since the deadline for withdrawal has been set. The next Fight there will be between Iran and Al Q/Taliban for the turf.
Hard Right: hi, What is the REAL DEAL NOW, is that we have here AMERICANS in their core beliefs,who are working hard in keeping AMERICA SAFE from ALL kinds of subversives attacks inside and
from outsides places where HATE is cultivated as a religion, and teach like science:
It’s exactly the right time for all AMERICANS to reach in their CORE BELIEF, and pause to REFLEX on the values of this BEAUTIFUL UNIQUE AMERICA; THEY must decide to stand for AMERICA,
which is calling them, and ask all if they truly can say to the whole WORLD,
I am an AMERICAN,and I will protect my COUNTRY who gave me FREEDOM,and is demanding
me to RETURN to the real values that so many young and old spilled their blood for me
and my loved one, before the forces of destruction succede in time to DESTROY
WHAT is the REAL AMERICA. THE QUEST to destroy is underway as we speak, and they are like a SNAKE,moving underneath our feet ,silent and confident, let’s crush it now,
DaNang67, goosebumps?
Try dry heaving.
Bees, that is the goal. They have shown the American people who they really are because they thought it was their time and that they could not be stopped. They are wrong. Enough people are standing up to fight and hopefully, the trend will continue.
@bees (#45): I am aware of the high esteem with which Hard Right is held on this discussion group. To my knowledge, I have always addressed him respectfully. I’ve never accused him of promulgating “lies” or being “delusional” or used similar derogatory language. I do offer rejoinders when he critiques my points of view, but, hopefully, that’s appropriate in a public forum such as this.
@danang (#46). The Democratic Party today is “far to the left” of FDR? That’s preposterous. Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower would be perfectly comfortable in today’s Democratic Party. Today’s GOP would refer to Nixon and Eisenhower as “RINOs.”
Why do I support Fiorina but not Whitman and why do I support Brown over Whitman? I respect Fiorina, because she rose to become the CEO of an iconic American mega-corporation, with an established and tough culture. This required a ton of political and interpersonal skills. Whitman took the reins of a start up and pretty much did things her way. Whitman has spent (so far) $140 million of her own money not because she wants to be Governor, but because she wants to be President. Were she to be elected as California’s Governor, her first priority with every decision, would be to consider how it will play in Presidential Primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc.
The Governor moonbeam thing is just a catchy label. Jerry Brown did as good a job of running an ungovernable city (Oakland) as was possible. He did a good, workmanlike job as Attorney General. What I just loved was the moment in the first debate when he was asked something about whether he could improve his performance over the time when he was governor, as a young man, half a lifetime ago. He previously spent a lot of time, for example, laying the groundwork for a Presidential run (see Whitman, above). Brown gave two answers: One, he’ll be 74 years old in 2012. Two, now that he’s married, he won’t be carousing around at night, “closing all the bars in Sacramento,” as he did before.
I just loved the frankly refreshing, self deprecating, candor.
What Brown wants to do now is to become as respected in California political lore as his father, who is credited with building California’s nation’s best University system, its water supply system, its highway system. I view the future of the UC system as one of the top issues facing California, and I have far greater trust in Brown than in Whitman, on this accord.
I also think it’s very important that California continue its experiment with effectively ratifying the Kyoto Treaty on greenhouse gas emissions. There is so much heated opinion, but no real facts, regarding the idea that it would be an economic calamity to “go green,” on one hand, or it would create a thriving “green economy, with millions of new green jobs,” on the other hand. Let’s just try it, in a single state, and see how it works. It’s a bold experiment — just the sort of thing which California, of all the states, has the culture and state of mind to attempt. If California were to go down the tubes, that would be a valuable lesson for the rest of the nation. If, on the other hand, California succeeds, that would be valuable information for the rest of the nation, also. Whitman wants to kill this. Brown is enthusiastic about supporting it. We’ll find out what the voters think, come next Tuesday. If we Californians decide that we want to hang ourselves, shouldn’t we be allowed to do it?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@mata (#44). Nice commentary. Of course, I’ll want to respond, but it’ll have to wait until the next time I awaken in the middle of the night and have an hour of protected quiet time to reply.
Again Larry, you show you are in fact a liberal incapable of deep thinking on political issues.
Let me help you see why you ARE a liberal.
You are for obamacare.
You are for CA going with the Kyoto Agreement
You think obama is a moderate who is governing from the center
You vote for a loony leftist (communist really) mainly because you think he will do good things for the university system while spending like mad.
You have little understanding of the impact terrorism has on the nation.
You think the REPUBLICAN party is the extreme party.
You basically blame Capitalism for the housing/lending collapse and not the true culprits-dems.
You think the self discredited David Brooks is a Conservative or Republican.
BTW, I really don’t care what you think of me. Your judgement of character is severely lacking for the most part.
openid I see you are now clairvoyant now. You already know who is running for president in 2012! Actually, Both Eisenhower and Nixon would not be comfortable with a socialist Democratic party. Both were supports of free enterprise.
I am amazed at how far you have progressed since the post where you could not see how a terrorist attack on Long Beach would affect California or the US.
Please send me the winning numbers for Wednesday’s Power Ball drawing!
openid ayol.com/runnswim,: YES SR, I believe you are very respectfull and I respect you also,
MAY I suggest that you answer MATA ‘s comment sooner than later, she might be absent then unable to get back as fast as she would be able. bye
Check this out!
@randy (#58), I’d like to respond to the charge that today’s Democratic Party is, in any sense, any more “socialistic” than it’s been since the Roosevelt years. I’ve asked for a listing of the top 3 “Marxist” legislative initiatives or actions initiated by or supported by Obama, since taking office. I’ll broaden this to ask for the top 3 “socialist” actions intiated by or supported by Obama.
If you can get specific, then I think we could have an interesting discussion. It very hard to respond to glittering generalities, labels, and slogans.
With regard to:
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have said that I consider the port of Long Beach to be the number one most likely location for a terrorist nuclear explosion. I can’t for the life of me see how this could be interpreted as saying that a terrorist attack on Long Beach would not affect CA or the nation. Clearly, it would have a devastating effect: among other things, it’s the largest West Coast port, and therefore the most important port of entry for Asian imports ranging from automobiles to electronics, as well as exports to Asia.
P.S. Whatever Jerry Brown is (and he’s one of the more interesting politicians of our time), he’s certainly no communist! I suggest that people read about communism and understand it, before carelessly misusing the label. Brown isn’t a “communist” and Whitman isn’t a “Nazi.”
Here’s a very nice, concise summary of Brown’s career:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/23/MNI81FIRM2.DTL&ao=all
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Key Tax Breaks at Risk as Panel Looks at Cuts
By DAMIAN PALETTA
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304354104575568643889337142.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLTopStories
Sacrosanct tax breaks, including deductions on mortgage interest, remain on the table just weeks before the deficit commission issues recommendations on policies to pare back with the aim of balancing the budget by 2015.
The tax benefits are hugely popular with the public but they have drawn the panel’s focus, in part because the White House has said these and other breaks cost the government about $1 trillion a year.
Sacrosanct tax breaks, including mortgage-interest deductions, remain on the table just weeks before the deficit commission issues recommendations on ways to balance the budget by 2015. Alan Murray and David Weidner discuss. Also, Jennifer Levitz discusses a leading national tea-party group that is laying plans to maintain pressure on new members of Congress after the Nov. 2 vote.
At stake, in addition to the mortgage-interest deductions, are child tax credits and the ability of employees to pay their portion of their health-insurance tab with pretax dollars. Commission officials are expected to look at preserving these breaks but at a lower level, according to people familiar with the matter.
I guess this will not be considered a tax increase either since discontinuing the Bush tax cuts is not considered a tax increase!
I wonder what will happen to all of those foreclosed houses that no one will buy when the home mortgage interest deduction goes away. This will push people away from home ownership towards rental units. I guess that instead of helping my sons buy a house, I will buy the house and rent it to them. Then I can take the mortgage interest deduction. I guess, I will have to rent my home from my sons! I can rent the houses and include the utilities in the rent. That way, the utilities will also be deductable. I can also reduce the rent if my sons mow the lawn and shovel the snow. Oh, well! I guess the government knows best!
@randy: You realize that the deficit commission has a bipartisan membership? Equal numbers of Dems and Republicans.
Greenspan has endorsed letting ALL the Bush tax cuts expire. Go back to the tax structure of the 90s, which was drastically reduced, compared to the tax structure in place from the end of WWII to 1982, and that’s all that would need to be done to get very close to the 2015 goals, even without any spending cuts.
You realize, of course, that the Bush tax cuts were a massive, deficit-producing Keynesian stimulus, as they were paid for not with spending cuts, but, rather, with money borrowed from the Chinese creditors featured in your youtube video (#60).
The WWII greatest generation was the greatest, not only because they won the war, but because they taxed themselves (91% marginal tax rate until Kennedy; 70% marginal tax rate until Reagan, with confiscatory estate taxes, etc) to pay off the war debt.
Today, we fight wars, cut taxes, and pay for both by putting them on our Chinese Platinum VISA card.
You want to prevent the scenario in your youtube video? Simple, just allow the Bush tax cuts to sunset on schedule and pay our own bills, rather than putting them on the tab.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
How to Balance the Federal Budget.
A real, no bullsh-t approach that would actually accomplish this.
The secret is simple: Everybody has to give up something. But everything important would remain intact.
The home mortgage interest tax deduction will be taken away about the time Christine O’Donnell is sworn in as POTUS.
Greg said:
The big problem with this whole idea is that someone else decides what everyone has to give up, and that same person decides what is important enough to remain intact.
Now, the question is: Who are you supporting that would decide all of that?
I can tell you right now that I don’t trust any democrat in any office to make that decision for me. Do you?
@ johngalt, #67:
I guess that’s the common problem we all have that comes from putting our partisan ideologies ahead of common sense and logic.
Do you trust any particular republican to address and resolve the issue of deficit and debt, with the best interests of the all Americans equally in mind?
These folks still do not get that raising taxes actually reduces tax revenue. Ask the folks in MD and NY. The Kennedy, Raegan, Bush tax cuts actually increased tax revenue as well as increasing GDP. Taxes reduces the amount of capital available for investment. Read the collums by Dr Sowell and Dr. Williams. Both of these economists put this issue in very simple terms.
It’s not that I don’t get it. It’s that don’t believe it. Cutting taxes does stimulate the economy, but the cost is additional debt. That’s what’s happened on each occasion that we’ve done it.
It’s because of the democrats’ spending, people say. Well, they’ve got the spending part right, but it sure hasn’t all been the democrats. Take a close look at the defense budget. Also ask yourself what social spending republicans are willing to cut, while taking full credit for that cutting.
It’s been calculated that an extension of the Bush tax cuts, plus additional tax cuts republicans have proposed, would diminish federal tax revenues by $4 trillion over the next decade.
There’s no way on God’s green earth that this would add anywhere near $4 trillion in revenues back, by way of increased economic activity.
What we’d most likely see would be a further shift of wealth upward, at the cost of another huge jump in the national debt.
@randy: What you say (#69) is simply not true! The reason tax revenue increases is that the economy grows. When the economy grows, tax revenues increase. The economy always grows, no matter what the tax rate, except during temporary recessions, which are generally short-lived. For example, the economy is now growing and tax revenues are now increasing, since Bush left office. You want to credit Obama for this? I didn’t think so.
Now, this is the issue, what portion of economic growth is directly or indirectly related to tax cuts? Answer is, very little. Conservative economists (as well as liberals) have studied this issue for decades. The answer is that there’s never been a tax cut since Kennedy which returned more than 30 cents on the dollar to the treasury, in terms of increased tax receipts. This means that 70 cents of every tax cut dollar is permanently lost to the treasury and must be borrowed (e.g. from China) to make up for the loss.
The only relevant metric is not gross tax receipts or gross revenue or gross debt, but is the debt to GDP ratio. If I’m 100,000 dollars in debt, but I’ve got an annual income of 200,000, then I’ve got a debt to income ratio of 0.5 and I’m really not in a lot of trouble. If I only have an income of 100,000 dollars, then my debt to income ratio is 1.0 and I’m in more trouble. If I only have an income of 50,000, then my debt to income ratio is 2.0, and I’m in still more trouble.
Debt to GDP ratio steadily fell under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter (going from 1.2 to 0.35). It close to doubled after Reagan’s tax cuts, under Reagan and Bush (going back up close to 0.7). Then it came down, when Clinton raised taxes (to about 0.55) then it went back up, following the Bush tax cuts (to 0.82). Under Obama, it has continued to rise (from 0.82 to 0.9), but only a tiny part of this was owing to the incremental difference between the Obama “stimulus” ($750 billion) and the stimulus the GOP had proposed (about $500 billion).
The concept that cutting taxes actually raises revenue enough to pay for the lost revenue from the tax cuts has been completely discredited. No one believes this anymore — not even conservative pundits and certainly not conservative economists.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
And you wonder why I call you delusional? Oy. When it comes to politics, you are very much so.
Greg, the deficit increased due to spending and not the tax cuts. It’s a pretty basic concept that you really just can’t grasp as a liberal.
@Hard (who wrote the above erroneous claim, # 72): Please read the following, and then provide any data whatsoever to refute the preposterous claim that tax cuts pay for themselves and don’t massively drive up the debt burden.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38810267
Just look at the debt to GDP ratio. There is this great myth that Reagan’s tax cuts grew the economy. No, the economy grew because it recovered from the recession at the end of Carter years. There is always a business cycle. Always has been. Always will be. Did Reagan leave the country better off, economically? Well, he doubled the debt ratio, before Clinton raised taxes and brought it down. And then Bush borrowed still more money to finance HIS tax cuts, and we increased the debt ratio by 50%. Bush and Reagan tried to buy prosperity by borrowing massive amounts of money, to avoid the distasteful need to ask Americans to pay for their own government (and later, under Bush, for their own wars). I bought a bit of prosperity myself with a home equity loan, a few years back, but now I’ve got to pay the piper. The government is no different.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Increased taxes changes tax payer behavior. I showed you in post #63 what changes I would make to avoid eliminating the home interest deduction. Why do you think that others would not change their behavior?
Raegan Tax Cuts: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120
The Mellon Tax cuts: http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0302-13.pdf This essay explains how tax increases changes tax payer behavior.
Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2699
Bush Tax cuts: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2856
Hw tax cuts affect the economy: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/09/Tax-Rate-Reductions-Strengthen-the-Economy-But-Excessive-Government-Spending-Threatens-Long-Run-Performance
Think of taxes this way: A farmer in the valley has a gasoline powered water pump that is the only source of water for your vegetable fields. To reach full productivity, the pump needs to run for 12 hours per day. This requires 1000 gal of gasoline per month at $1/ gal. At full production, he can afford the gasoline each month from the sale of the vegetables you produce. He pays for housing, clothing, food transportation and other required expenses and has a few dollars left over for discretionary spending.
Now, the tax collector wants $50 per month so he can travel around the countryside collecting the taxes. The governor needs $100 per month to give to needy people in the city. Other government officials need $200 per month for their activities.
The farmer is now short $350 or 350 gal of gasoline per month to achieve full productivity. In the vegetable farming business, this may mean he has to cut back the area he is farming to 50% of the full potential of his farm. The farmer pays his required expenses, cutting back on clothing, transportation and food. He likely stops discretionary spending all together.
By losing 35% of his fuel for the pump, the farmer likely reduces his productivity by 50%. (The amount of water may not be directly proportional to productivity.) He no longer supports other businesses because he no longer has the money to buy their products or services. The money he would have spent was taken by the government as taxes. The people the farmer normally would patronize have to cut back their expenditures, too, since they do not have as much money to spend. If the government takes an equal amount from all the people in the valley, all of the productivity in the valley is greatly reduced.
Now, if the government economizes and reduces the taxes by 50%, all of the productivity in the valley increases. If the government uses the taxes to improve farm to market roads, the government may actually improve productivity again. Improved productivity of the farmer improves productivity for all in the valley. If taxes are a percentage of net productivity, the tax base is larger generating more tax revenue as a result of the tax cut to everyone in the valley.
If you take the time to read about the Mellon tax cuts in the reference above this should be very clear. My 9 year old nephew understands this concept as well as some of our more adept Presidents.
There is tons of information out there written by expert economists. You need to want to learn!
@Randy: Many a beautiful theory has been ruined by an ugly fact.
What is the number one plank in the GOP’s 2010 campaign?
The deficit. The debt. Generational theft. Call it what you will.
The ugly fact is that Reagan’s tax cuts DOUBLED the debt ratio, after 35 consecutive years of the debt ratio falling under high tax rate administrations, including Carter’s.
Then Clinton raised taxes and we again started paying down the debt ratio.
Then Bush cut taxes and the debt ratio ballooned by 50%. In contrast, the debt ratio has only increased another 10% on Obama’s watch.
Of course tax cuts help improve prosperity — at the margins. But it’s not paid for by enough increased economic activity to pay for the tax cuts. It’s paid for by borrowing money and increasing the debt load.
None of your linked references considers the issue that tax cuts massively drive up debt. So, do your care about debt, after all, or is it just Obama-bashing campaign rhetoric? If the issue is deficits and debt and generational theft, then the number one cause of that debt is insufficient taxation to pay for government spending. It’s very nice to theorize that it might be possible to reduce government spending by a trillion dollars a year, or whatever, but it’s never happened and it never will happen. On the other hand, all we need to do to solve most of our debt related problems is to let the Bush tax cuts (which never should have been granted in the first place and which have greatly contributed to our current debt miseries) sunset.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Why do you think Yahoo only paid 3.5% tax? Why do you think US Companies with international business move their HQ off shore? Higher taxes change behavior. Raise taxes AND WATCH THE TAX BASE GET SMALLER!
@randy: You provide isolated anecdotes, but we have a macro economy.
I’ll ask you again: are deficits and the debt the big issue which the GOP is currently making it out to be?
The ugly fact, once again, is that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts produced exploded debt ratio. Every other President since WWII either raised taxes or kept them stable and reduced the debt ratio. Save Kennedy, who reduced Eisenhower’s marginal tax rate of 91% down to 70%. And conservatives scream that raising marginal rates to 39% would constitute socialism.
You suggest that bringing tax rates back to where they were in the 1990s (as advocated by Alan Greenspan) will wreck the economy? No, it won’t, but it will raise $1.7 trillion in tax revenues to largely solve the debt problem.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
You can lead a donky to water, you can not make him think!
RANDY, yes your right, bye
Larry, you are a veritable font of facts. It’s too bad that so many of them just aren’t true. You rely a lot on sources that promote your world view.
I’m sure that I too could find a hagiography of Jerry and his dad. Someone might even credit old Pat Brown with doing more to create the California Master Plan than just signing it into law… but that would be wrong (sorry… love that quote). And Moonbeam DID turn Oakland into a dynamic utopia, I know. What a guy. When you elect him the UC system can DOUBLE the number of administrators to enhance the students’ multicultural experience of social progress towards… something… in the great American tradition of… Noam Chomsky and Timmy Leary.
I can tell that there’s no point in trying to explain that Reagan doubled revenue to the government by cutting taxes because you’ll tell me that’s just because GDP increased! Well, duh! Never mind. You’ll refuse to accept that spending doesn’t necessarily have to increase. Ever since the Congress adopted base-line budgeting, every reduction in the rate of increase in spending for any program has caused apoplectic shrieks that “programs are being cut!!”
I’m a little surprised that the deep cuts in Social Security under Obama aren’t being shouted about by Republican politicians. I’m lying. I’m not really surprised. It’s the only way to handle the Social Security mess since they killed the Bush plan.
But the Chinese are gonna be sooo pissed!
@Greg
Firstly, name one Democrat in office right now who hasn’t either pushed for increased spending or fallen in line in lockstep with the liberal/progressives in charge/
I could name several, including Ryan from Wisconsin. The problem is that, yes, the main GOP leadership isn’t much of a trade-off from the Democrat leadership, but the new blood that is coming in for the GOP are generally conservative in principle, and quite a bit different than what we’ve had for the past 10 years or so. Your problem, and the other liberal loonies, is that they are so much more conservative than what we’ve had that you all consider them “extreme”. I consider them students of Reagan and his ideology, and I support that.
Sooner or later the dingbats on the left will realize that you cannot give everybody, everything they want, as supplied by the government, because there won’t be enough people actually working to pay for it all.
Aide to Harry Reid Lied to Feds, Submitted False Documents About Sham Marriage
James Madison, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fishermen introduced to the First Congress said,
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
Prior to that, in Federalist 41, Madison wrote,
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.”
Madison’s incredible forethought underscores exactly what all Americans are facing today as we move into the November 2nd Election.
What brought about the recession? Tax increases and govt. meddling in the free market. What ended it? Tax decreases and deregulation.
Wrong yet again. You are too smart to be so dense, Larry.
If you suddenly double what you are taking in, but quadruple your spending beyond that, the debt goes up!
If you cut taxes then spend way beyond what you bring in, THAT IS WHAT DRIVES UP DEBT! This is so basic. Am I using words too big for you? Seriously!
Larry, the Dems controlled the House during Reagan’s time and he basically cut a deal with them. They would allow his defense buildup if they got their way on domestic spending.
It really amuses me when people give Clinton credit for the “elimination of the deficit”. Clinton didn’t eliminate anything-especially thru raising taxes. The GOP did when they controlled congress. I remember how he fought them tooth and nail until they discovered what the GOP wanted was popular with the people. It was only then they “supported” the reforms. After that the GOP lost it’s way and became dem lite. It was the reason GOP turnout was low the last few elections. Republicans and Conservatives were disgusted with them. Hell, the dems lost control of congress for the first time in 40 years partly because of the masive tax increase they instituted. The GOP lost control because they acted like dems, but not as bad as the current batch. That is why we will see the GOP take the House for certain. I’m guessing 55 seats to the GOP.
@Old Trooper 2: one of the BEST jokes I have heard in the last 20 years.
@ Heltau, never read the Federalist Papers? Someone neglected your education maybe? Or is Das Kapital more your style?
I’m sure people can tweak the numbers, but what would a balanced budget really look like? Here is my rough draft of the $2.381 trillion budget (including Social Security income) 2010 budget.
Military 23% $547.63 billion
State Department 2%+$4.08 billion for $51.7 billion
Debt 20% $476.2 billion
Infrastructure 14% $333.34 billion
Homeland Security 3% 71.43 billion
War on Terror 5% $119.05 billion
Disaster Fund 1% $23.81 billion
Department of Justice 1% $23.81 billion
Veterans Affairs, unemployment insurance, federal employee disability and GI Bill 16%+$7.17 billion $388.13 billion
Department of the Interior 1% $23.81 billion
EPA 1%-$11.25 billion $12.58 billion
NASA and National Science Foundation 2% $47.62 billion
Commerce, Labor, Small Business, Agriculture, GSA, “other agencies according to Wikipedia” and Energy 5% -$11.37 billion $107.68 billion
Treasury, executive and congressional branch staff 1% $23.81 billion
Railroad pension $6.42 billion
Social Security Disability Insurance 5% +$4.95 billion $124
Notes:
National debt. Although it is a major increase, it would still take over 30 years to pay off the debt.
Infrastructure. The American Society of Engineers claims the U.S. had to spend $1.7 trillion on the core infrastructure in 2007 just to keep it stabilized. The total tab was between $8-$9 trillion.
Department of Interior gets a $11.81 billion boost. Many federal parks are hurting for cash. Since many conservatives hunt, fish, camp and hike in federal forests and BLM, they will probably welcome the increase.
The EPA gets a $2.06 billion boost.
The military gets just over a $2 billion boost.
NASA and the National Science Foundation (merge) gets a $21.92 billion increase.
Commerce, Labor, Small Business, Agriculture, GSA, “other agencies according to Wikipedia” and Energy get $8.41 billion increase.
In 2010, veteran benefits came to $154.98 billion, federal civilian disability came to $71.14 billion, unemployment insurance came to $162.01 billion.
I left out some stuff including other federal pensions and the $60 billion in food stamps program. The reason I left the other federal pension money out, is because I couldn’t find any information on how much the federal goverment pays. The pension money I did find I included. I left out the food stamp program, because the budget would actually increase the number of people working, plus some people think that food stamps for abled bodied adults is a waste of money.
I also couldn’t find the dissection of the $940 billion in the payroll tax. The payroll tax is used to pay for Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. Since I couldn’t seperate it out, I just left all the money in and dumped the programs I didn’t want.
Stay classy, conservatives . . . .
B-Rob: OF COURSE IT’S the DEMOCRATS’S FAULT, WE KNOW that, THEY ARE TROUBLE MAKERS.
bye
Shenanigans at the polls:
Arizona and N, Carolina, just for starters
http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/machine-91656-screen-voter.html
http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/25511115/detail.html
@ B-Rob
Definitely disgraceful. They should have just ignored or or contacted the authorities. No matter what, for any man to place his foot on a woman’s head while she is on the ground is in my mind an act of extreme cowardice.
@ bees —
You may have not been raised this way, but I was raised not to hit or even touch a woman in a physically hostile manner. Here you have two large men grabbing on a woman, pushing her to the ground, putting her head on a curb and . . . stepping on her head?! How can you defend that?
Never mind . . . I know how you defend it. If your side does it, it simply is not wrong or, in the alternative, she deserved it. You took the position that this woman deserved to have her head stepped on by a 200 pound plus fat guy.
msbees re #88 I QUESTION the past,present and future credibility of ANY woman who condones what she sees on that video.
What say you?
According to the Louisville Courier Journal, “Lauren Valle of MoveOn.org approached Rand Paul and tried to give him an “employee of the month award” from Republicorp…a fake business MoveOn created…..
Not good what was done.
She did NOT do anything that justified pushing her to the ground and getting her neck stood on.
I don’t know if Rand’s ”fans” are as rabid as his dad Ron’s ”fans,” but it looks like they are.
Many people who back Ron Paul are absolutely nuts!
And more than a few are registered as Republicans…..even though Ron became a Republican only recently.
I think any fan of an opponent who tries to come into close contact with the candidate competing with his might be in line for being muscled away.
But this was too much.
Bodyguards should have prevented her from ever even seeming to be a threat.
Both sides, in this Paul/Conway race seem into political theater for the cameras.
B-Rob, AND Rich Wheeler, AH AH very ASTUTE just like a rodent would,well 2 of them;
I will say to that, that my computer does’nt help me to view too long UTUB,
I saw a bit of that yes, but did not Identified the person as a woman, or a man,
or an opponant of RAND PAUL, and could not get the real story, because of the reason
I previously mentioned; SO you are doing exactly what you accuse me of taking a stand for,
without knowing my reason, and I tell you my reason for the comment I made was to respond on your own arrogance saying”stay classy conservatives”, even that was enough for me to jump in.
not the video. YOU tried and failed your dirty tricks
There have been several interpretations of what happened that were not captured in the video. Some people believed that this woman was a security threat. I don’t know because I was not there.
While I was in Iraq, our behavior was guided by the rules of engagement developed by higher command. When you are dealing with irrational people who may be girded with an explosive belt, you look at people differently. There were many times where Iraqi civilians exhibited behavior that could have been interpreted as potentially dangerous to me or others. When the danger was only to me, I took more time to evaluate the behavior before I acted. When others were involved who could be affected, I had to react much more quickly. I was lucky I never made a mistake. I was 1/2 of a trigger traverse of killing a young man when I saw he had a rock instead of a grenade.
If you look at the ads the left has aired about Ron Paul, some accused him of some scary things. The claims are outlandish. Ads like this raise the level of awareness and may cause over reactions. Here is a woman obviously wearing a bad wig rushing towards a person who has been vilified by the media and the ads is stopped by bystanders. In the heat of the moment and during the struggle, a foot was placed on her upper back and neck to subdue her. On Monday morning after the Sunday game, this is unacceptable behavior. At the time, who can say what the proper action was?
Re:#90.
Two very interesting stories.
I wonder just how much of this we will see?
And the military votes are being ditched, in several states, too.
B-Rob, Rich Wheeler, Go back and read my comment again. and read yours. and
analyze your own behavior, before insulting any one here, including me.
Let’s see, this gal’s name is Lauren Valle, according to a police blotter:
It is quite common for residents of Falmouth, MA to attend debates in Kentucky especially when that resident just might be, say……a MoveOn.Org employee, per CNN’s piece they did this a.m.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/26/kentucky.debate.scuffle/index.html
Here’s part of a comment she made that I find interesting. Why the “we’re” where’s the rest of them?
According to a live report I saw earlier today, witnesses told police she rushed Rand Paul as he was getting out of the car and heading into the debate, that’s when people outside of the debate pulled off her wig and wrestled her to the ground. Untouched was the “I’m a Rand Fan” sticker on her red hooded sweatshirt, the video showed.” Let’s assume that was also part of her disquise, I’m sure the police investigation will figure that out promptly, until then we can assume. Anyway, they certainly did mess up her opportunity to get close enough to him to snag a pic of her with Rand Paul and that award. THANK GOD SHE DIDN’T HAVE A WEAPON or mace or something.
What is known at this point is that the man that wrestled her to the curb, in a move that was less agressive than what I’ve seen in grade school wrestling meets BTW, was a Rand Paul supporter, unknown at this point is who put his foot on her. Known is that people told him to knock it off while others were calling for the police. That would be calling for police because of the aggressive actions perpetrated by one Lauren Valle, not those that subdued her and brought her to the ground.
Wonder what she might have been doing in May. Ah, look at this, she was visiting Lafourche Parish, LA with friends:
http://www.lpso.net/pressrelease.asp?id=927
Gee, I wonder what’s on her webpage now?
@Missy
Thank you for that information. One has to wonder what would happen to a person who tried to rush up to a democrat, like say, Pelosi or Reid. The threats of violence seen in recent years, particularly those targeted at conservatives and the GOP, is escalating. How soon before that person rushing up to a politician is not brandishing an award, but a weapon. I’m sure that was on the minds of the people who wrestled the woman to the ground.
The loonies that visit here like to imply that violence is one sided, from the conservatives, and continually deny or ignore the proof of it from the left. One such figure here has even implied that since the recent act took place, that conservatives are all supportive of everything that happened. And yet, they still discount various acts by the liberal/progressive crowd and claim conservatives are the violent ones.
As for me, whatever else this woman deserved, she didn’t deserve to have her head/shoulder stomped on. That is the regrettable part, not the wrestling of her to the ground.
When I hear the loonies here denounce all of the violent and threatening acts by the left, then I can start believing that they truly are against violence, regardless of some people’s claims here that they were taught never to hit a woman.