When Ronald Reagan ran for president, his opponents scoffed at his proposal to lower taxes, calling the possible results as “Trickle Down Economics” (a/k/a Reaganomics). They said it was a worthless economic policy. Was it?
In theory, TDE is an economic system where there is no significant barrier to accumulation of wealth by individuals. If the rich do well, benefits will “trickle down” to the rest of the people. Lower taxes on high income or capital gains will benefit not only the rich but everybody on the lower income rungs, as the theory is supposed to work. Reagan's critics had to “eat crow” as the economy boomed after the Reagan tax cuts kicked in. The resulting prosperity lasted more than 25 years. Yes, the rich got richer, but so did the poor and middle-class, “a rising tide lifted all boats”, as Jack Kennedy once opined. The economy was booming during the late 80's and 90's as a result of Reagan's “Trickle Down Economics”.
As envy took hold among a certain section of the population, mainly by liberal Democrats, who thought that by lowering taxes would decrease government revenue, (but during Reagan's two terms, government revenue practically doubled). The clamor for higher tax rates resonated across the national scene, pushed by the Democrats. They claimed it was unfair that rich people got richer and as a result they felt that some of those extra riches should be confiscated by the government by raising taxes on the wealthy. For the last 20 years, drip by drip and inch by inch, the Democrats have pushed for successful people to pay more taxes into the federal treasury to help fund the money losing social programs instituted by the liberal politicians looking to shore their low-information and poor voting base. Since both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both champion the Marxist/Socialist economic philosophy, part of their campaign proposals include “income redistribution”, which is one of the planks of socialist theory (take from the rich to give to the poor).
During this period of when Reagan's tax cuts kicked in (1983 to 2007), America's net worth climbed from $25 trillion to $57 trillion. In fact, more wealth was created in the U.S. during those 25 years than in the previous 200 years. This period was called by many economists “the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet”. Besides cutting taxes, Reagan lifted price controls on oil and natural gas, cut regulations, took on the unions, and advocated for free trade. All this booming economy came to an abrupt halt in 2008, mainly as a consequence of wrongful public policy (the housing mortgage meltdown).
The old adage of “people who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it” (this was a George Santayana quote) is something the Democrats haven't learned, as they want to punish success through taxing and regulating the producers over and above what is fair and equitable. In economics, there comes a “point of diminishing returns” which generally comes about when you take the incentive away from businesses and entrepreneurs by over taxing and over regulating them. After all, the top 10% of income earners now pay 70% of all income taxes, and they are vilified by the liberal left as not paying their “fair share”. Compare that “fairness” with the fact that 47% of income earners pay no federal income tax ( is that fair?). For example, a few years back the government, in their abject stupidity, instituted a “luxury tax” on products that wealthy people normally bought such as yachts, expensive cars etc. that cost $30,000 or more. The result of this action caused the wealthy people to curtail or stop their purchase of these luxury goods, thereby putting some of the producing companies of these luxury products out of business and the resulting layoff of thousands of workers, who were not wealthy. This oppressive tax was finally repealed after a short period of time. Was that a lesson to be learned by the Democrats, apparently not?
The policies put forth by the Democrats today is tantamount to reversing the theory of “Trickle Down Economics” which worked so well for so many years, and now they want to change it to “Trickle Up Poverty” as that will be the result if the tax and spend Democrats get control of the government after the November elections.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
Sunday, April 24, 2016
I've been closely following relevant commentaries aired in pertinence to the use of the unsecured
server used exclusively by Hillary Clinton to communicate Government business via email.
I am extremely perplexed by those coming from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State.
She emphatically claims there was no classified or secret communications transmitted at any time,
in any of the scrubbed emails she hid from investigation, jeopardizing the country's security by
bypassing government secured methods for her convenience.
If we are to believe this, she is implying she did not deal in any kind of classified or secret
documents through her personal server and email account. If this assertion is incorrect and in
fact there was, I'd like to know how she conducted secret State Department communications.
Through carrier pigeon? There must have been classified business conducted between her
department and other departments in government, as well as our embassies around the world.
Was Benghazi security compromised, that led to the ultimate death of Ambassador J.
Christopher Stevens and the four American heroes?
If the fix is on and the DOJ does not follow FBI recommendation for indictment, even if that's
where their investigation takes them, will the media continue to protect Hillary Clinton?
A bone of contention sticking to my craw is Hillary trying to garner sympathy by trying to
compare her 11 hours in the congressional house hearings on Benghazi with the 13 hours
of pure hell her incompetence created for those who gave their life protecting American
interests, and her lying about the circumstances leading up to it.
Wall Street made their down payment to protect their investment on her presidential run
in speaker fees and foundation contributions. Do we really want somebody like her to
spearhead our security, protection and economy? Do we want our daughters to hold
her as a role model?
Conservative column from George Giftos
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Most working people would probably say “NO”, but they would have trouble defining what their worth really is. A good definition of what is the right pay for a worker is: “You don't get paid for the time you work, you get paid for the value you bring to the time you work”. In other words, is your production worth it to the employer, company, or organization to pay you the amount they pay you?
Many people today feel that they should be paid for the job classification, regardless of what they contribute to it. Equal pay for equal work, has been the rallying cry for years by the “militant feminists” when they petition for getting more pay for women. They never mention that an “Equal Pay Act” was passed in 1963 which was intended to not have wage discrimination between males and females. Equal pay determination is easy if two people are doing the same work or similar work, but the objectivity blurs when you try to compare dissimilar jobs. How do you compare a teacher with a truck driver, or a sales clerk with a carpenter etc., etc., as other factors also enter into the determination of what a person should be paid?
Due to physical differences in men and women, there will always be some disparagement in how men and women are compensated. Men, overall, are physically stronger than women, so therefore they are more prone to be attracted to jobs that many women shy away from such as, firemen, combat military, manual labor etc. That's also true with women, who tend to be attracted to certain jobs that men mostly won't do such as, nurses, elementary school teachers, checkout clerks etc. That's not to say men and women don't crossover to work at the jobs mostly held by the opposite sex, but in the main, stereotypical job selection by men and women hold up as stated.
The “political football” of raising the minimum wage, as seems to be a big push in “progressive” quarters today, is an area where the government gets involved when it really shouldn't. To have the government set an arbitrary base minimum wage for hourly workers with little, if any, consideration as to how that wage can be compared to production, as needed by the employer, generally brings “unintended consequences”. It generally means, mostly in the unskilled teenage group and seniors supplementing their retirement income, that there will be fewer jobs available, thereby causing higher unemployment for those on the lower rung of the pay and skill ladder. By raising the minimum wage, you will also cause a demand for an upward adjustment by other workers immediately above the newly set minimum wage plateau. Think of all the entry level positions that might be lost around the country, if we price these workers out of the market by artificially raising employees wages without any thought of the economic hardship placed on the employer? That increase might seem beneficial for the worker, but if his employer has difficulty meeting that increase, that entry level, low-skilled worker might be laid off or have his work week cut back. That's an example of the “unintended consequences” of trying to be generous and magnanimous to workers without regard to the value that the worker brings to the job. Is it better for the worker to be employed at $8.00 per hour or unemployed at $15 per hour? It's as simple as that.
Some people use Europe as an example of putting into place higher minimum wages, but when you see that the unemployment rate, in most European countries is greater than that of ours, it should give some pause for thought that artificially determining what someone should receive as pay determined by some government bureaucrats, might not be in the best interests of the worker or for the country's economy.
The demagogues, of course, will vilify all those who oppose a spike up in the minimum wage, but pure simple economic logic, will win out in a serious debate as to its merit, but emotion seems to always trump logic, most of the time, so the pressure on the feckless politicians to raise the minimum wage will be forever present.
In conclusion, politicians should let the”free market” determine the pay of the workers (except in instances of coercion, fraud, or exploitation) because the “unintended consequences” of arbitrarily setting pay scales, is more detrimental to the worker than letting the productivity of the worker determine his worth in the marketplace.
Remember, you don't get paid for the hour you work, you get paid for the value you bring to the hour you work
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmamm
Sunday, April 17, 2016
How many Armies, Navies, Air Forces,
Nukes & Missiles does it take to be stupid?
There are 125 nations in the world today that have varying degrees of military might comprised of Armies, Navies, Air Forces, missiles & Nuke capabilities. At least a dozen of these nations have significant quantities of men and hardware to conduct war and the capacity to snuff out the lives of millions and millions of the World’s population. How many of these nations do you think have, ‘RULES of ENGAGEMENT’?
Care to hazard a guess? Just one Folks, just one! You guessed it. Purportedly, the most powerful nation on Earth, The United States of America.
Now, what is the military all about? Why do nations have Armies and Navies and Air Forces? Why is that? Nations with peaceful people have militaries in order to defend themselves against nations dominated by lunatics who maintain super-sized militaries to do their will and exert control over the populations of other nations.
So, why in the hell is it that the United States is the only nation on the entire Globe that suffers from ‘Terminal Political Correctness’ and imposes utterly stupid ‘Rules of Engagement’ on its military. We have a President and Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces, who hasn’t a clue about when or how to use the military but, is so paranoid + Narcissistic that he has fired more than 200 Senior Generals and Admirals because they had the temerity to offer their expertise in military matters that didn’t jibe with his cowardly, lead-from-behind ideology. Under no circumstances will he ever stand and fight an enemy. And if that enemy happens to be Islam, ‘fuggetaboutit’ !!
To put it only slightly facetiously: President Barack Hussein Obama’s Rules of Engagement mandate that a soldier has to be shot dead, before he can return fire on an enemy, for fear of injuring a nearby ‘innocent’ civilian. Yes, it is that painfully stupid.
This Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces, without benefit of having served a single day in any military organization, on his own and contrary to all the unified voices of battle-hardened military advisors - has shoved these Rules of Engagement down the throats of our men and women in uniform thus, putting their lives in danger, imminent danger 24/7, as they faithfully and courageously carry out their duties, on hostile foreign soil. Nothing approaching this callous & reckless stupidity has ever been seen to come directly from the office of a United States President. Obama is a traitor who should have his citizenship revoked, all future benefits negated and he ought to be banned for life, from ever again setting foot on USA soil.MORT KUFF © 4-15-2016
Judge Jeanine Blasts Hillary Clinton in Opening Statement.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
It boggles my mind that some conservative G.O.P. members would vote for Hillary Clinton or not vote at all if Donald Trump gets the Republican nomination. That's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. They totally ignore Reagan's “80% Rule” which states that a Republican should vote for the Republican candidate who agrees with 80% of what you believe. Whether you love or hate Donald Trump, I'm sure his views would meet that 80% plateau as compared with the 0% that Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders) has spelled out.
I've voted for Republicans in the past who I felt fell short of what I believed, but I held my nose and voted for for both John McCain and Mitt Romney (before he became a Judas Iscariat by trashing Trump), as better than the alternative, Barack Hussein Obama. Think of the millions of Republicans who didn't vote in 2008 and 2012, because the candidates weren't pure enough conservatives and look what we got, two terms of a totally inept president who has screwed up our country big time. I think as weak as both McCain and Romney were, they would've been better than Obama. Hillary has declared that she will continue the failed Obama policies if she is elected president. Is that what you would want?
When we were kids, there were times when we did not get our way with our friends, and when that happened we threatened to or did take our ball or toy and head home in a pique. Of course, that was a childish move, but it could be excused because of our age, but as adults, we should know better and not act like children.
You don't have to accept or agree with everything Donald Trump says or does, but what is the sensible alternative, Hillary (or Bernie)?
The positions Donald Trump has taken and promises to fulfill are positions most conservative Republicans believe in such as; nominating a conservative Supreme Court justice in the image of Antonin Scalia; closing the southern border and tightening up visas issues to prevent illegal immigrants and drug traffickers free access into our country; negotiating better trade agreements and better national security agreements with other countries; building up our military and taking better care of our veterans, etc., etc. Neither Hillary or Bernie believe in those sensible positions, so why even consider that they would or should deserve your vote instead of voting for Donald Trump? Does it really make sense to vote for your ideological enemies ?
C'mon conservative Republicans, wise up and stop your pettiness because your candidate didn't make it in the primary. If you want 4 more years of Obama, go ahead and vote for the enemy (Hillary). You not only will hurt yourself, your family, your friends, but also the country as a whole. We will then continue on the “road to perdition” on our way to becoming a second-rate country, in the image of Europe. We don't want to become the United States of Europe, do we?
So, if you vote for Hillary and she becomes president, you can then say you have met the enemy and it is us.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
Sunday, April 10, 2016
In order to create his legacy as the president who brought
our country prosperity and world peace while maintaining
a questionable Nobel Peace Award, this mere shadow of a
leader has instead done more, by his misguided policies, to
create and contribute chaos that has shaken the country,
turning it topsy turvy by alienating our friends and
befriending our enemies.
If we compare the presidency to sport or game, in a game
of billiards, Obama has scratched out. In a round of golf, he
hasn't made the cut. In downhill skiing, he's wiped out. In
basketball every shot has been a ringer and he has fouled
out. He's been in the penalty box more time than on the ice
in hockey; but in a bout of chug-a-lug at beer
summits, our "Mittyesque" president wins hands down.
Using these metaphors, perhaps the low information illiterates
and the bleeding heart future would be Hillary voters might
see the error they made in 2008 and 2012, and stay home in
the 2016 election, to avoid making another mistake.
Conservative column from George Giftos
Thursday, April 7, 2016
What a disgrace that our politics has evolved into a Jr. High School insult contest. Both parties are at fault, especially the Republicans. Personal attacks, outright lies, and a lack of specific actions to solve our country's problems, have taken a back seat to decorum and common sense.
The Republicans are engaged in a circular firing squad beating up on each other with crude insults against each other, while the Democrats are falling all over themselves in promising “free stuff” to all who are willing to accept the government handouts, and then blame the Republicans of conducting a “war on women”, being racist and being homophobic.
The Republicans are being portrayed as being anti-Hispanic by stressing that our borders should not be a sieve for letting our country be invaded by illegal aliens, almost unimpeded. Even an ex-president of Mexico has entered into the fray with a burst of a profanity laced tirade against our border policy and Donald Trump in particular. It seems that Vincente Fox is afraid that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee and possibly the next president, and will attempt to get the Mexicans to pay for that much needed fence. Donald Trump couldn't have asked for more of a needed boost by having this Mexican official butting in to our political campaign.
Conversely, the Democrats are intent on trotting out the race cards, the gender cards, and the sexual orientation cards, in an effort to gin up the vote totals of those special interest groups and “low information” voters which they represent.
This should be the year that the Republicans have a “slam dunk” in being able to win the presidency. A less than truthful and untrustworthy Hillary Clinton and an avowed socialist, like Bernie Sanders, should be enough to put a Republican back into the White House. But alas, it looks like the Republicans have not learned from the loss of Mitt Romney in 2012 when his opponents in the primary used innuendo and less than truthful snide remarks to build up their candidacies at the expense of Romney who was the odds-on favorite to win the Republican nomination. As was expected, after Romney was nominated and during the general election, the Democrats used these derogatory statements against Romney, and it seemed to have worked for the Democrats. And now, we have seen the spectacle of a defeated Mitt Romney, who happily welcomed Donald Trump's support in 2012, coming out condemning him in a very deceitful way. What the hell is wrong with the Republican establishment, are they trying to grab defeat from the jaws of victory? It surely looks like it.
On the Democrat side, the usual blather about Republicans being sexist, racist, and homophobic and a host of other made up negative images, are standard political rhetoric on the Democrat side. These false charges get trotted out every election cycle because it seems to have worked in the past, the truth doesn't matter, to them, in other words, the end justifies the means, the truth be damned.
Both parties should take a deep breath and clean up their act (wishful thinking) and if they don't, than a “Pox on All Their Houses”.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
Sunday, April 3, 2016
It seems to be getting ‘more worser’ all the time.
Whenever I’m at a loss for sufficiently pungent language to express one of my rantier rants, I can usually find it in a resurrection of some of the popular idiom from the days of my ‘yoot’ in East Baltimore. Hence, a description such as ‘more worser’, used in the title of this piece.
The current embroilment that is taking place instead of an orderly, rational political process leading toward the upcoming presidential election, is as violent, as dangerous and certainly as frighteningly unpredictable as was the ancient eruption in Italy, of Mt. Vesuvius. And I fear, the results might prove to be equally as horrific.
Once this new nation ran through the initial series of Presidents who were numbered among the original men who participated in gaining our freedom from the oppression of the English King George III, who then went on to found these United States of America, the well seems to have run dry of such extraordinary men. From those days to the present, there has been scarcely a handful of men who rose to anything approaching the character, quality, insight and courage exhibited by those Founding Fathers. With rare exceptions, we’ve had a litany of duds & disappointments along the way. The outstanding example of a man for his time was of course, the singularly unique President since George Washington, Abraham Lincoln.
While the hum-drum, run of the mill presidents have slipped from active memory into near oblivion in the annuls of U. S. History, the batch beginning with Woodrow Wilson has included some real doozies. When one recalls the presidencies and administrations of Warren Harding, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and currently, the ‘very-worst-of-the-most-worstest’, Barack Hussein Obama – and then contemplates the present group of totally ‘unacceptables’ running for the top elective office – it is enough to make one itch over every inch of one’s body.
Prayer for Divine Intervention is in order, unworthy though we surely are, due to our inane obsession with something-for-nothing as promised by a variety of Pied Piper misfits. If we are to survive as a free people, the next president of the United States had better be a cut above the ‘more worsers’ with whom we have been plagued over the past three-quarters of a century. Vote with extreme care, my Friends.