Second Worst President in US History.

[ScottL]

I disagree with Diogenes. Bush did what he thought was right, unfortunately it wasn't.

1. You can't engage in war while lowering taxes.
2. You can't engage in 2 wars while lowering taxes.
3. You can't spend like there's no tomorrow while 1 and 2
4. Initiated TARP bailouts
5. Policies lead to one of the greatest trends of job out-sourcing
6. Fell off a Segway
7. Choked on a pretzel or chip

At the start of his first term we were entering an economic downturn. We remained in an economic downturn and at the end of his second term, started the entering of a recession. Either it was conservative policy or Bush that lead us there (talking pre-Obama presidency). We were there regardless.

Anecdotally: 2000-2008 is when I personally experienced the greatest hardship of my life and I think many others did too such that there was a huge swing to the left and Obama got elected. I do not, however; believe there will be a huge swing to the right now. I feel we need to get to a moderate, central position to survive. There are great ideas to be had from both sides and both sides need each other.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/ ... igger.html

Could you try using a less biased source? I've noticed both sides tend to skew the figures to how they want it to be seen. It's the death-panels rhetoric all over again.

[Diogenes]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/ ... igger.html

Could you try using a less biased source? I've noticed both sides tend to skew the figures to how they want it to be seen. It's the death-panels rhetoric all over again.

I happen to believe that we have reached a point in our society where it isn't possible to be right wing enough. The Nation has moved far to the left over the last 100 years, and what used to be the center is now considered to be the extreme right.

You want a "less biased source" when reality itself is biased against the left. Just look at the massive devastation that long term Democrat control of various states has done for them. (Michigan, Illinois, California, etc. ) Total basket cases.

[ScottL]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/ ... igger.html

Could you try using a less biased source? I've noticed both sides tend to skew the figures to how they want it to be seen. It's the death-panels rhetoric all over again.

I happen to believe that we have reached a point in our society where it isn't possible to be right wing enough. The Nation has moved far to the left over the last 100 years, and what used to be the center is now considered to be the extreme right.

You want a "less biased source" when reality itself is biased against the left. Just look at the massive devastation that long term Democrat control of various states has done for them. (Michigan, Illinois, California, etc. ) Total basket cases.

You're incorrect in regards to California. Reagan and conservatives passed legislation doing away with property tax followed swifty by a change in the state legislative law requiring a 2/3 super majority to overturn said legislation. Prior to these two specific laws, California had a surplus under Democratic management. Pre-Reagan, the University of California was free to all California residents who met the academic requirements. California squandered their surplus under Reagan and hasn't been the same since.

[IntLibber]

Could you try using a less biased source? I've noticed both sides tend to skew the figures to how they want it to be seen. It's the death-panels rhetoric all over again.

I happen to believe that we have reached a point in our society where it isn't possible to be right wing enough. The Nation has moved far to the left over the last 100 years, and what used to be the center is now considered to be the extreme right.

You want a "less biased source" when reality itself is biased against the left. Just look at the massive devastation that long term Democrat control of various states has done for them. (Michigan, Illinois, California, etc. ) Total basket cases.

You're incorrect in regards to California. Reagan and conservatives passed legislation doing away with property tax followed swifty by a change in the state legislative law requiring a 2/3 super majority to overturn said legislation. Prior to these two specific laws, California had a surplus under Democratic management. Pre-Reagan, the University of California was free to all California residents who met the academic requirements. California squandered their surplus under Reagan and hasn't been the same since.

Actually, it was proposition 2 1/2 that lowered property taxes, without mandating spending cuts, that squandered the surplus.

[ScottL]

I happen to believe that we have reached a point in our society where it isn't possible to be right wing enough. The Nation has moved far to the left over the last 100 years, and what used to be the center is now considered to be the extreme right.

You want a "less biased source" when reality itself is biased against the left. Just look at the massive devastation that long term Democrat control of various states has done for them. (Michigan, Illinois, California, etc. ) Total basket cases.

You're incorrect in regards to California. Reagan and conservatives passed legislation doing away with property tax followed swifty by a change in the state legislative law requiring a 2/3 super majority to overturn said legislation. Prior to these two specific laws, California had a surplus under Democratic management. Pre-Reagan, the University of California was free to all California residents who met the academic requirements. California squandered their surplus under Reagan and hasn't been the same since.

Actually, it was proposition 2 1/2 that lowered property taxes, without mandating spending cuts, that squandered the surplus.

In Mass. perhaps but in California it was Prop 13. The tax was used to fund education, fire, and police services. All of which have been in decline since 1978.

[Diogenes]

Could you try using a less biased source? I've noticed both sides tend to skew the figures to how they want it to be seen. It's the death-panels rhetoric all over again.

I happen to believe that we have reached a point in our society where it isn't possible to be right wing enough. The Nation has moved far to the left over the last 100 years, and what used to be the center is now considered to be the extreme right.

You want a "less biased source" when reality itself is biased against the left. Just look at the massive devastation that long term Democrat control of various states has done for them. (Michigan, Illinois, California, etc. ) Total basket cases.

You're incorrect in regards to California. Reagan and conservatives passed legislation doing away with property tax followed swifty by a change in the state legislative law requiring a 2/3 super majority to overturn said legislation. Prior to these two specific laws, California had a surplus under Democratic management. Pre-Reagan, the University of California was free to all California residents who met the academic requirements. California squandered their surplus under Reagan and hasn't been the same since.

You mean that because they couldn't steal any larger percentages of other people's money, THAT caused the deficit?

We are not your slaves.

[ScottL]

As you would say, it's the State's right to tax as they see fit within their borders. The end result:

1. Declining Polce Services
2. Declining Fire Services
3. Increased Population
4. Decreasing available property (see 3)
5. Surplus spent (Reagan era)
6. Standing Debt (started with Reagan)

So your solution would be to lower taxes further?

[ladajo]

Scott, you should study Margaret Thatcher, read some of her speeches and interviews, watch some videos. There is plenty of stuff out there. Then tell me what you think the answer is.

So far, your position appears to be to take from those that do and give to those that don't. Of course, once the word is out, that you don't have to do, invariable the ranks of don'ts mysteriously grows, and all the while, the takers from those that do believe the answer is to take more and give more. A fail in the end. You know, like Social Security and 401k's.

[Diogenes]

As you would say, it's the State's right to tax as they see fit within their borders. The end result:

1. Declining Polce Services
2. Declining Fire Services
3. Increased Population
4. Decreasing available property (see 3)
5. Surplus spent (Reagan era)
6. Standing Debt (started with Reagan)

So your solution would be to lower taxes further?

I do not believe the state has a "right to tax as they see fit. " They are not our Lords, and we are not Peasants. Our social contract is by the "consent of the governed" and we are founded as a Republic, not a Democracy.

Liberals have no self control. They will take everything if they are allowed. They gravitate naturally towards government and power, preferring to sit in offices and proclaim how much more money other people must give them for their pet projects. Invariably they cite DIRE CONSEQUENCES for Police, and Teachers, and TAINTED FOOD, if they do not get what they want.

I will do what I can to starve the beast. I have been working to go Galt for a long time, and I hope to show others how to do so as well.

[ScottL]

Scott, you should study Margaret Thatcher, read some of her speeches and interviews, watch some videos. There is plenty of stuff out there. Then tell me what you think the answer is.

So far, your position appears to be to take from those that do and give to those that don't. Of course, once the word is out, that you don't have to do, invariable the ranks of don'ts mysteriously grows, and all the while, the takers from those that do believe the answer is to take more and give more. A fail in the end. You know, like Social Security and 401k's.

I do not take from those that have, but I willingly give to those who have-not per my best judgement. This does not mean I actively give away money, but I'm willing to pay the extra for the service (IE: police, fire, etc.)

[ScottL]

As you would say, it's the State's right to tax as they see fit within their borders. The end result:

1. Declining Polce Services
2. Declining Fire Services
3. Increased Population
4. Decreasing available property (see 3)
5. Surplus spent (Reagan era)
6. Standing Debt (started with Reagan)

So your solution would be to lower taxes further?

I do not believe the state has a "right to tax as they see fit. " They are not our Lords, and we are not Peasants. Our social contract is by the "consent of the governed" and we are founded as a Republic, not a Democracy.

Liberals have no self control. They will take everything if they are allowed. They gravitate naturally towards government and power, preferring to sit in offices and proclaim how much more money other people must give them for their pet projects. Invariably they cite DIRE CONSEQUENCES for Police, and Teachers, and TAINTED FOOD, if they do not get what they want.

I will do what I can to starve the beast. I have been working to go Galt for a long time, and I hope to show others how to do so as well.

You won't succeed, but feel free. While you're busy doing that, I'll look for solutions within the context of my life. For instance my tax solution theory.

Take the national average salary (let's say $50,000 because I like round numbers) and anyone making half of that or less is exempt from paying taxes. Now scale the percentage of tax up from $250001 up to $50,000 equalling 15%. So someone making $26,000 would pay 0.6% and someone at $50,000 would pay the full 15% where 15% would hold steady up for individuals. Small businesses could be locked in at 20% while corporations would have an option. Employ only U.S. citizens and get a tax rate of 25%, employ outside and depending on percentage of work force outside the U.S. scale up taxes to 50% making it essentially a huge dissincentive to out-source jobs. The above being fairly progressive with some flat taxation depending on classification Individual vs. Corporate vs. Small Business.


Meh an idea, too busy to respond for a few days, moving, expecting to see a whole host of responses though.

[hanelyp]

Scott, look up the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Over a century ago, but the core arguments apply to the current debate. Lincoln argued the right of the individual to the fruits of his labors. Douglas argued the right of the sovereign democratic state.

Also check out http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm, another old essay relevant to today. To summarize:
- the proper role of the law is a collective exercise of individual natural rights.
- forcible transfer of wealth "for the common good" violates the rights of those it is taken from.
- the will of the democratic majority is not inherently moral, and cannot justify an immoral act.

[ladajo]

Scott, you should study Margaret Thatcher, read some of her speeches and interviews, watch some videos. There is plenty of stuff out there. Then tell me what you think the answer is.

So far, your position appears to be to take from those that do and give to those that don't. Of course, once the word is out, that you don't have to do, invariable the ranks of don'ts mysteriously grows, and all the while, the takers from those that do believe the answer is to take more and give more. A fail in the end. You know, like Social Security and 401k's.

I do not take from those that have, but I willingly give to those who have-not per my best judgement. This does not mean I actively give away money, but I'm willing to pay the extra for the service (IE: police, fire, etc.)

That's nice that you wish to apply your best judgement. However the State that you propose takes that judgement away from you. It makes it for you, whether you like it or not.

Yes, nobody argues that basic services are the point of a community. Would we have all volunteer fire departments (as some communities still have), or would we have a full time paid professional force. Well, I say that is up to the community, and should not be dictated from above. The right to self determination as it were.
You miss the point it seems.

Maybe you should also review the debates and discourses regarding poll taxes, and then understand that at some point your grandparents would have had to pay to vote, or in my case my father.

The fundamental issue is that our system has become bloated. When state police officers can take in more in retirement than they earned while serving, there is an issue. Ever heard of the "High Three" or "High One" rules? That is unions fleecing ignorant taxpayers by taking advantage of the corrupt system, and IMNSHO it is all crap. I can cite examples all day long...

[ScottL]

I read through the Lincoln vs. Douglas arguments. There was assuredly some underhanded twisting by liberal media (newspapers) at the time, but he argument seemed off. By way of the State's Rights view, States should have gotten the right to choose whether slave or not. If this is the argument for State's Rights, it's a pretty clear argument for interfering in said rights.

As for the Civil War, it was not brought about because of slavery, slaves made it about slavery, which was a great move for them. Lincoln actually went to war to stop the south from seceding. By way of the Emancipation Proclamation, he said to hell with the state's rights and proceeded onward.

This was not a good argument for social or fiscal conservatism. I'll read through Thatcher's stuff next. I'm willing to believe there is financial gain within a conservative view, but I believe it creates a large disparity between rich and poor regardless of how hard either are working.

[ScottL]

Margaret Thatcher was a very intelligent person, however; she had her faults, noted by both conservative and liberal groups. She was the Education Secretary from 1970-1974, during which time spending cuts were made to education. This lead to the closing of several schools and elimination of several programs such as the "Free Milk" program which gave free milk to children between the ages of 7 and 11. She later started the centrally-funded City Technology Colleges which failed miserably which did not garner support from many right-wing think tanks.

She became Prime Minister from 1979-1990 in which she lowered direct taxes on income while increasing indirect taxes. She increated interest rates to slow the growth of money supply and lower inflation, while introducing cash limits on public spending and reducing expenditures on social services such as education and housing. This didn't work out too well for her however; as 1981 rolled around riots in England prompted a national push for policy reversal. Her job approval rating dropped to 23% by December of 1980 (lowest recorded by a Prime Minister. As the 1980s continued and with the political turmoil and civil unrest, she reversed policy and increased taxes (March 1981). By 1982 the UK was showing signs of economic recovery and inflation was down 8.6% from a high of 18%. Unemployment was still high, but the economy was taking a turn for the better. Through out the 80s the economy continued to strengthen under this policy reversal and there you have it.