Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Amanda Carpenter :: Townhall.com Columnist
Hillary and Obama's Econ Fixes
by Amanda Carpenter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton proposed using massive means of government intervention and spending billions of taxpayer dollars to revive the economy in dueling economic speeches on Thursday.

Before voters in Greensboro, North Carolina, Obama focused on tightening regulations on the housing industry and giving $30 billion worth of assistance to help homeowners make mortgage payments.

Obama called for a six-pronged “21st-century regulatory framework” to address the housing crisis, which includes the creation of a “financial market oversight commission” and stronger controls on lending.

“Financial institutions need to do a better job at managing risk,” Obama said.

“Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it….each American does better when all Americans do better, that the well being of American business, its capital markets, and the American people are aligned.”

Obama blamed corporate America for the nation’s economic woes. “We’ve lost that sense of shared prosperity,” Obama said. “This loss has not happened by accident. It’s because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington.”

Shortly after Obama wrapped his speech Clinton proposed spending $12.5 billion over five years on “universal” job training at a stop in Raleigh, North Carolina. Earlier this week, Clinton delivered a speech in which she supported giving $30 billion in tax dollars to homeowners struggling to make mortgage payments, like Obama.

Clinton said her job training program would be “universally available” and would preemptively target manufacturing workers whose jobs were in peril.

“When it comes to retraining assistance, our government is more focused on how you lost your job than how you can find a new one,” Clinton said.

McCain senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin and RNC Victory Chair Carly Fiorina held a conference call to address the content of Obama’s speech.

Holtz-Eakin criticized Obama for not providing enough details about his six-point regulatory plan. When speaking, Obama said he would not try to “cross all the T’s and dot all the I’s” on it in a single speech.

“The devil will be in the details and as he will put forward more proposals we will look at them,” Holtz-Eakin said.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Amanda Carpenter is the author of “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton,” published in October 2006.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Amanda Carpernter. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Democrats and your money
Gee, didn't see this coming. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. Great, more big government solutions, like medicaid, welfare, etc etc

Obama's speech
If I hadn't heard the speech I would have a totally different view based on your article. Obama clearly stated that only a small fraction of homeowners should get any help. He agreed with McCain in stating that those banks and speculators who made shaky loans would be stuck with no help. He did say that gov't should have an oversite committee when providing aid as they did in the 30 million loan for Bear Stearns. We should put all the facts out there.

Amanda, where were you the last 7 years?
The Republicans doubled the size of the Department of Education. The Republicans increased pork barrel spending from 3,000 to 14,000 projects. The Republicans increased entitlement spending by $40 billion a year with the Medicare Prescription plan. We are in two wars that cost a total of $150 billion a year.

This increased yearly spending of $225 billion per year over the last seven years was paid for with, hope you're sitting down, with Tax Cuts! We have put the entire bill on the nation's credit card. Whoopieee!

Amanda, we could have used your tough fiscal, no-nonsense attitude the past seven years of the Republican spending-orgy spree. Where were ya girl?

more regulation
Treasury Secretary Paulson on behalf of the President is requesting more regulation for Wall Street. Paulson, an ex-Wall Streeter himself, realizes his old buddies are in deep doo doo.

Soon, Wall Street is going to need more than the $30 billion gift (from taxpayers) to JP Morgan and the $200 billion handout (from taxpayers) to the rest of the investment banks.
This agreement for more regulation is preceding a request for an even bigger bailout for Wall Street!

Who here disagrees that this handout of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street isn't a wealth redistribution scheme from Main street to Wall Street?

hehe
no kidding zap, I used to think I was a republican, now I make it clear, im not republican, im conservative...there is a growing difference.

zap
you mentioned tax cuts as if they lower government revenues. Its been proven they increase them. so really if we were to cut taxes across the board we would get more because the economy would speed up. but liberal logic will not let that happen.

Minor adjustment
CKHustler wrote, "so really if we were to cut taxes across the board we would get more because the economy would speed up. but liberal logic will not let that happen." That should read,"so really if we were to cut taxes across the board we would get more because the economy would speed up. but liberal illogic will not let that happen."

wbheff
lol

wbheff
dont they mean the same thing?

I sometimes
think i'm the only person who knows that any time taxes are raised, more poor people are created.

Heck, a five year old knows that if another child gets a bigger piece of the cake, he/she will have LESS cake.

comment
I sometimes
think i'm the only person who knows that any time taxes are raised, more poor people are created.

Heck, a five year old knows that if another child gets a bigger piece of the cake, he/she will have LESS cake.

Yes but that doesn't make a difference to the dems. They either have enough money they don't mind being taxed more or they are so poor they don't pay taxes anyway. So raising taxes is a good thing because it doesn't really effect them all that much. If it did they wouldn't be for increasing taxes.

CKHustler
What proof? I have another theory.

All the borrowing and spending, borrowing and spending and more borrowing and spending during the George Bush years has, in itself, had the ability to raise tax revenues.

Here's how,

For example, borrow $400 million from China, then, Congress decides we need a critical infrastructure investment project like "a bridge to some island, populated with 40 people, somewhere in Alaska."

The U.S.A. borrows the money, pays the workers, and the workers pay income tax. This is one project, now multiply all the above by 14,287. Feel free to pick another country to borrow from.

Each year, Bush’s tax cut is supposed to save the average family some taxes. Hmmm...$6 trillion will be added to the deficit during Bush’s eight years of office.

And believe it or not, it took 200 years to get to $4 trillion of national debt but only 6 years of Bush ‘tax cut’ philosophy to double it.

Isn’t it self-evident that your tax savings was merely paid for with increased debt?

Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away deficits did matter and even balancing the budget was talked about and it was Conservatives who talked about it.

tax cuts
Could we just double or triple down on the Bush tax cuts, and the increased revenue would pay for national health care, a moon colony and could even get the United States out of the looming entitlement-spending bind?

yea i read that
i read that under your name...bunch of twisting numbers really. when have we not been borrowing? Our government revenues went up!

here are our revenues for 2001-2005 for ya...you can twist saying we borrowed more, but we always did, here are our numbers from irs.gov if you'd like to look. you'll notice what 9/11 did to us here.

2001: 2,128,831,182
2002: 2,016,627,269
2003: 1,952,929,045
2004: 2,018,502,103
2005: 2,268,895,122

notice after going down the tax cuts took place in 2003...it started going up at an increasing rate...may i take a bow now? lol

check this out
Here's the video of Obama's speech about his proposed economic plan. frightening.

http://campaigncircus.com/video_player.php?v=8845

They don't understand the role of DC
Another stellar article about famous people in backwoods NC (my home town). But you forgot to mention the most important people in the area yesterday. . .George Clooney and Rene Zellwegger were here to promote their new movie that they shot here.

But back on topic, these D candidates think that we should be marxist or communist. They certainly have no problem blaming corporate America for things, and denying any responsibility of the government for failings.

This country is a free country. Freedom means that you are free to fail. If the government keeps everyone from failing, they will also keep everyone from succeeding. If that happens, we won't be free. . . we'll still be a 'democracy' but we won't be free citizens because all of our work will be done for the state.

These D candidates are dangerous and scary for freedom in America. Every time a politician says they are going to give you something, make sure you figure out what two things they are going to take from you in order to be able to give you something.

Of course the catch-all when questioning the cost of their programs is . . . well if we didn't spend so much money on the war. . .

THAT'S THE ROLE OF DC. Their roll is the common defense of our capitalistic free society. . . A society full of individuals who are free to fail or succeed as their choices dictate.

umm... CK hustler
last time I checked it doesn't matter how much you bring in if you're still spending that much more. Did you ever have accounting? I can earn a trillion dollars but if I spend 2, guess what? I have a deficit! Now that we've moved on from 1st grade, you know that the value of our dollar has decreased significantly right? Why is that you might ask? Because we print more money (because we don't have it) to cover our wars/entitlements. Factor that into the "gains" we've had and they aren't near as much. Add to that the inflation (basically a TAX the middle class is paying for) and we're most definitely in worse shape.

Tax cuts are great. I'm all in favor of them. You just have to be sure you don't spend more in the process or you end up screwing everybody.

So you can bow, but im not going give you a standing ovation.

New concept
“Financial institutions need to do a better job at managing risk,” Obama said.

How about a new concept: people need to do a better job at managing their own risk. Don't buy more than you afford! I know that doesn't resonate well with big-government nanny staters, though...

new concept
Snafu wote:
How about a new concept: people need to do a better job at managing their own risk. Don't buy more than you afford! I know that doesn't resonate well with big-government nanny staters, though...

How about the only ones Obama talked about helping were those who were cheated by unscrupulous lenders, those lenders who are being sued by State Atty. Generals. What are you saying about big businesses who need government bailout, i.e. Bear Stearns. I guess big gov't is good for the goose, but not for the gander. Bear Stearns probably didn't know how to manage their risk huh?

hope4freedom
oh for sure...i was just proving a point to zap.

i am a total fiscal conservative and do not like McCains fiscal record either. We need much more fiscally conservative people to drag this country out of deficits. My personal goal would be to lower federal spending 3% every year i was president. we need a president with a goal like that

in another column 'McCain hate war' one or something GG-AZ has some great ideas about it.

We've been doing all of the things
Clinton and Obama think are new!! In New Jersey, we have hideous crime scenes called our inner cities: increased government dependents, schools that serve as anything but, and taxpaying people fleeing in droves! We HAVE job training, community clinics that provide medical care, preferential hiring for minorities, well funded schools, and every other social entitlement program you can think of. NONE of this is new- so we have ample proof of what it all leads to!!

If any of the candidates are at serious about the economy , they will:

*Lower taxes and reduce restrictions on small business.

* Allow schools to set rules and teach rather than appease stupidity and dance around lawyers.

* Put all gov't dependents on mandatory birth control through the use of depo-provera. Yes- it will have to be the women.

*Manage immigration by accepting only educated or skilled people who CANNOT earn money here, send it home, and go on welfare.

* Legislate medical tort reform.

This is a start. The privileged and insulated politicians in ALL parties have no idea how to even do there own grocery shopping!! Where in God's name they muster the gumption to think of themeselves as leaders is beyond me!!


Bear stearns was bailed out???
news to me...and most of the people that work there

And another thing
What jobs will people be trained for when the evil private sector is systematically hobbled, eviscerated, or has left the country?? Personally, I need a strong private sector so that I can have a social work job! How this is lost on anyone is positively unfathomable.

btw zapdoodat
I trust you will remove your little article on taxes then under your handle. Maybe you should write one on how lowering taxes did raise our revenue...here ill give you a little secret bud. you know math?


if you tax 100% you will get no revenue as no one will make any money

if you tax 0% you will also receive no revenue.

if you tax 50% you will gain revenue

this all means there is a maximum amount of revenue at a certain tax amount...this of course moves a bit all the time, but will stay fairly constant.

our last tax cuts raised our revenues, which means we are above the max amount tax rate...so we should lower our taxes again until it doesn't increase our revenue!

Obama:regulation for finance industry


Obama gave a speech on economics today that, of course, addresses the subprime mess.

The Atlantic/Ambinder: Obama today targeted the regulatory policies of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He implied that the Clinton administration was complicit in deregulating the economy to such a degree that it laid the groundwork for the subprime mortgage crisis.

“Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices,” he said. He blamed a “$300 million lobbying effort” for hoodwinking Washington.

Obama was referring to the repeal of the New Deal’s Glass Stegal regs on banks by the Graham-Leach-Billey bill of 1999, which allowed financial institutions to merge without updating the regulatory framework.

Obama economics adviser Daniel Tarullo said that Obama opposes a resinstatement of Glass-Stegal but wants the regulatory apparatus to catch up. Obama said that banks ought to be required to increase their liquidity and capital requirements. He did not say by how much. He laid out six principles he said will guide him as president.

One — “First, if you can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision.”

Two — better regulation of financial markets at home

Three — better regulation of worldwide interconnections between markets

Four — reducing duplicaton among regulatory bodies

Five — crack down on illegal trading activity

Six — more monitoring of systemic risks to the financial system

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/obama-more-regulat ion-for-finance-industry

None
Don't forget the illegals. Never knew you had 30 children, did you?

financial institutions and risk...
Financial institutions do not need to do a better job managing risk. People have forgotten or have never learned the basics of finance---risk vs. reward.

Unfortunately, the finance game has become more about salesmanship than sophisticated finance. . . the derivatives market has fueled this, yes, and will continue to do this.

Extremely smart people come up with wildly intricate "schemes" and sell them as "foolproof." Unless, of course, X happens. . .but X can't possibly happen.

But X always happens. If it didn't, double digit returns would not be possible. There truly is no free lunch (economics basic principle.)

CKHustler
You should take notice of some math too.

For every dollar that wasn't collected in taxes, four dollars were put onto the national credit card. It feels great at the moment but the bill will come due some day. Guess who the biggest purchaser of our debt is?

cont.

The Financial market is so very efficient it is sickening. Every time a hedge fund loses billions in a week, people cry that the inconceivable happened and the market is out of control. . .the perfect storm. But it is precisely the opposite, and everything is working as it should.

People think they are guaranteed perpetually high returns, perpetually growing real estate values, and perpetual carefree economic euphoria. I understand that that is the bill of goods many are sold, but even a dolt can understand that there is no free lunch.

The truly sad thing is that one can be responsible, not even smart, with their finances and do quite well. But living and humbly and patiently hasn't been en vogue for quite sometimes. Nor has being mature.

Spending cuts
Here some programs that should be completely eliminated.

1.) The space shuttle, the space station and the proposed moon colony. Spending money on humans in outer space is a complete waste of our R&D dollars. Robots could do it better and we've already achieved all the low hanging fruit when it comes to space exploration.

2.) The National Flood Insurance Program should be scrapped immediately. Why subsidize people who build beach front McMansions in a hurricane or flood zone?

3.) All farm subsidies should be scrapped immediately. If the US farmer can't compete globally then they can get a job at Walmart as a 'greeter.' Ethanol subsidies only makes us more dependent on foreign oil.

zapdoodat
very valid points, but I think that taxation and enormous deficit spending are two different beasts. Yes, tax revenues can feed off of the spending, but ideally that spending shouldn't be there. You listed some great examples of spending that, IMO, offer no real economic benefit (and certainly no tax revenue increase) that should be scrapped.

Deficit spending has its limits. Are we near that limit...if not we are certainly approaching it (As international institutions boycott our debt outlays in response to our monetary policy.)

It is interesting that as we are in the midst of a subprime mortgage crisis that was created by the idea (promise?) of never-ending real estate value increases, we increase our deficits based on the idea of an ever-increasing GDP (and a deficit % based upon that)

tax cuts in a time of war
The 'Greatest Generation' saw tax increases during WWII and worked even harder. A different time and a different people for sure. 'Rosie the Riveter' worked long hours with a tough tax burden to make B-17's at the Boeing plant. All Americans worked more, sacrificed and paid their full tally of taxes.

Too many of us conservatives can bloviate like so, "The United States of America is surrounded by enemies as never before and they want to destroy the United States and everything it stands for. Everything."

If the very survival of our country is at stake, and the only way we can soldier on, is to pray that our precious tax cut needs to stay in place, then we are surely on a steep spiral into the abyss.



Captain Rad
"Yes, tax revenues can feed off of the spending, but ideally that spending shouldn't be there."

Sorry, I was trying to make that exact point. It was, perhaps, the increased spending, that led to the increased revenue that CKHustler claims is due to the tax cuts.

Had taxes been held firm, from 2001-2007, and some spending had been eliminated (instead of exploding) then the USA would be in a much stronger position, financially, than we find ourselves in now.

zap
do you know the tax rate around WW2? on the order of about 8%...quite a bit different than 30% or higher don't ya think?

you say tax cuts have lower revenue...yet i have proven the opposite...so why are you still complaining about that?

spending needs to take a spike decline.

you say space program...many of your household items would not be invented yet had it not been for our space program. they do much more than go to the moon.

any national insurance should be cut...that should be done by private companies

i agree on farm subsidies as well...

here are some more...

department of education needs out. privatize our education system and actually teach our kids instead of brainwash them.

much sticker welfare program.

irs needs out too...or at the very least a fair tax system.

i could research and find many more but i will stop there

zap, i am all for spending cuts...but tax cuts make more revenue and i have proven that.

zap
how can you say during those years that suddenly our tax revenues went way up when our spending went up the same as every other year. you are just twisting numbers to do what you want.

or should i say
how can you not contribute that to the tax cuts if that happened...

our spending has gone up every single year for how long? yet...our revenues were falling before 2003 then suddenly tax cuts and the revenues rise...please explain

Captain Rad
"People think they are guaranteed perpetually high returns, perpetually growing real estate values, and perpetual carefree economic euphoria."

I bought into this idea in 1990, when I purchased my first mutual fund, "The Japan Fund."

I'm sure you know the history of the Nikkei index the past 18 years. It was a lesson worth learning when one is young.

CKHustler
"do you know the tax rate around WW2? on the order of about 8%.." NO sir!!

Here's a government web site with actual pay stubs.
The tax rate, in some instances was over 50% for hourly workers.

http://www.nps.gov/pwro/collection/website/payment.htm

They paid an income tax, a "victory" tax and had deductions for War bonds. Guess who is picking up the tab for this fickle generation?

the nikkei
"The Nikkei can go only go up up up."

It seems that everyone must learn a harsh lesson occasionally. But it's a healthy lesson (for most).

But the more people that get involved and seemingly have access to these markets, the greater the temptation to accept government intervention and protection. . .which is a bit unnerving.

That and the fact, as I mentioned, complex finance has become a game of salesmanship over sound finance. It is scary to me that J.W. Meriwether almost immediately started a new hedge fund after Long Term Capital Management lost about $4 billion in 4 months.

top rate of 94% in WWII
"Did you know? The first US income tax was signed into law by President Lincoln in 1861 to help pay Civil War expenses. It was later repealed and ruled unconstitutional. In 1913, with World War I on the horizon, Congress passed an amendment to the Constitution, allowing a new income tax to be enacted — and it has been with us ever since, in some form or another. The rates often change, and historically they have peaked in times of war, reaching a lofty all-time high of 94% at the end of World War II."

From, http://www.answers.com/topic/tax-1?cat=biz-fin

Now those Americans were tough.


no your missing the main point here
conservatives would gladly pay more taxes if:

1. our government took personal responsibility for the money they spent and did not waste it like they do
2. abolish programs for people who sit around and get money from the government
3. privatize many sectors of government including say public education
4. our government doing the above actually needed the money


there are very few things our government is supposed to do constitutionally. namely roads and national defense or the military. those together wouldn't make 1 trillion dollars yet our budget is over 2 trillion. That is where conservatives get pissed off. Our government does not need more of our money, they need to spend it wiser

CK Hustler, SPeak for Yourself
Whether or not a conservative, like meself, would be willing to pay more taxes, is problematic. Transparency, control and a sunset clause to end any and all fees and taxes beyond a basic minimum, would need to be in place.

Later Dudes and Dudettes.

Just have the govt write you a check
Now that everyone is being bailed out and it's the government role to cover the risk Americans take, why even bother taking the risk. Just let the government know what house you want and have them write you a check to avoid foreclosures. No more struggles to make those mortagage payments. Think of the vacations you could take. Before, we get too excited over Obama's and Hillary's plan, it's always best to read the fine print. Nothing's free.

Here is a thought on taxes
If the Goverment would would ask no more then God ask then America would be in much better shape.God ask for 10% of your increases.The Goverment take is at least 30% if you add up social security,sales,property,state (if any),business licence(if any),tolls,fines,Fed unemployment and I am sure I missed some.If this rule were in place 10% to your Church and 10% to your Goverment you would have 80% to enjoy your life.I know Churches can be corrupt but so can Goverments.If this was the way your Goverment would have less money to oppress.Remember,God is a better investment He offers Eternal Life Assurance those who don`t belive this will pay a high price Damnation in Hell

keltin
that is basically what I was saying. Unless they get rid of these programs and spend responsibly I am not willing to pay more taxes. Only then after that when they truly need it would I be willing to.

On our current course this is not the case as Zapdoodat tries to say. Our government is not in deficit because we are not paying enough taxes. Our government is in deficit because of the liberal programs put into place by FDR that should have been removed after WW2. Such as welfare. Things such as medicaid, social security and the like need to be slowly removed so the people that are say 30 today do not rely on it and the people 60 today will be able to. GZ-AA had an idea for that which interested me on another thread. We are getting to a point of no return on some of these which is scary because what other choice will we have than to say to the elders, we just don't have the money. Now we are trying to add another program in Universal healthcare after they have proven they are not responsible.

HC and BO dissemblers both
No one can take either HC or Bo seriously. HC claims to be brokers of the Irish peace and survivors of terrorist gun fire among other ridiculous exaggerations and BO claims to be a law professor, which is a lie, and a uniter when, in fact, he supports racism, victim hood, and handouts. BO had no problem dealing with Rezko when it profited him - then ethical considerations are conveniently misplaced. He calls his own judgment "boneheaded." How can anyone take these people seriously. They are ultra liberal socialists who want to turn our federal democratic republic into a socialists republic. They will tax us to death. They should be running for office in France.
Obama and Clinton are frauds who should be embarrassed by their falsity. Their failure to be so supports their emptiness and dangerous self-centered ambition.
BO's audacity is assuming that "typical white people" are the fools Wright professes us to be. Obama stayed in Wright's "church" because it was advantageous to his self, his ambition, his desire for power.
I’m sick of listening to Mr. Hopeless Oblama deride this great nation, urge the sense of victim hood and the propaganda of cannot, urge resentment and helplessness, stoke racism and us/them, denigrate the compassion and giving that is at the heart of America and Americans.
This is the nation of can, but only if you do.
This is the nation of treasure, but only if you seek.
This is the nation of those who have and will and do give their lives for our freedom and the preservation of our Constitution that guarantees our inalienable rights to pursue happiness.
The Obamas and the Clintons are spoiled, resentful, often ignorant, elitists.
We know what hope is, and it isn't Obama and his socialist, self-centered, self-serving agenda, and is isn't Clinton and her asinine, false self-concept

HC and BO dissemblers both
No one can take either HC or Bo seriously. HC claims to be brokers of the Irish peace and survivors of terrorist gun fire among other ridiculous exaggerations and BO claims to be a law professor, which is a lie, and a uniter when, in fact, he supports racism, victim hood, and redistribution of OUR wealth. BO had no problem dealing with Rezko when it profited him - then ethical considerations are conveniently misplaced. He calls his own judgment "boneheaded." How can anyone take these people seriously. They are ultra liberal socialists who want to turn our federal democratic republic into a socialists republic. They will tax us to death. They should be running for office in France.
Obama and Clinton are frauds who should be embarrassed by their falsity. Their failure to be so supports their emptiness and dangerous self-centered ambition.
BO's audacity is assuming that "typical white people" are the fools Wright professes us to be. Obama stayed in Wright's "church" because it was advantageous to his self, his ambition, his desire for power.
I’m sick of listening to Mr. Hopeless Oblama deride this great nation, urge the sense of victim hood and the propaganda of cannot, urge resentment and helplessness, stoke racism and us/them, denigrate the compassion and giving that is at the heart of America and Americans.
This is the nation of can, but only if you do.
This is the nation of treasure, but only if you seek.
This is the nation of those who have and will and do give their lives for our freedom and the preservation of our Constitution that guarantees our inalienable rights to pursue happiness.
The Obamas and the Clintons are spoiled, resentful, often ignorant, elitists.
We know what hope is, and it isn't Obama and his socialist, self-centered, self-serving agenda, and is isn't Clinton and her asinine, false self-concept.

entitlement spending
and the Republicans piled it on even more with the $40 billion a year Medicare Prescription Plan allowing American taxpayers to pay three times more for drugs than anywhere else in the world.

when it comes to reducing spending, too many Conservatives, talk the talk, but ain't willing to walk any walk.

What ab out this, Zapdoodat
Let's forget about income redistribution, penalizing successful people, punative taxation designed to give government control over people's lives, and go to a (heaven forbid)...a truly flat tax. No exemptions, no deductions, etc. You know that many of the European socialists countries are moving more to privitazation and developing flat tax systems along the way. (At the very time that Democrats have fallen in love with failed or failing European socialism. Dems...always living in the last century)

The nation does need a tax base to function...to carry out its basic mission. But it does not need angry neo-Marxists to penalize individual success. The United States does not need a Department of Education, farm subsidies, or corporate welfare.

In can, and should, offer one-time, tax-free incentives to accomplish specific things if they are in response to a critical national objective. I refer you to Newt Gincrich's book, "Real Change".

Sensible management (too much to ask for??) and a minimal flat tax could open up this country to a whole century of progress and development.

Liberals want control, rather than innovation. They want to tell everyone how to live their lives. They want group-think rather than the fulfillment of individual talents.

Mel
"Let's forget about income redistribution, penalizing successful people"

Like the $230 billion handout Wall Street got last week.

Mel
"and a minimal flat tax"

likely a pipe dream, since the national debt now stands at $9 trillion. This works out to about $33,000 per person or let's say, 100 grand for each American family. The Republicans doubled this debt in just the past seven years.

Much more focus should be concentrated on spending cuts. Talk the talk and walk the walk.


zapadoodat
"Like the $230 billion handout Wall Street got last week."

Well it was a loan, so thats not really a handout. If you want to factor the value of the difference in interest on what the banks got from the Fed versus what they would have gotten in the private market, fine, but its clearly not 230 billion.

Obama, on the other hand, is looking to handout 30 billion.

the economy
We the people pay all taxes, and we are the sole ultimate source of all tax revenue. Regardless where government initially collects the money, all tax money ultimately comes from us, the people, even though business has to pay thousands or millions of dollars at one time, and get it back from us one dollar at a time.
Since we the people are the one and only source of all tax revenue:
There should be only one tax to collect all tax revenue.
It should be a single, simple, fair, direct, graduated, individual, full-income tax levied on living persons for each level of government: One Tax and Done.
The best thing that government can do to help the country, the people, and even government, is to repeal all of the many hundreds, or thousands of existing taxes, fees, and charges. These taxes are the federal deficit. These taxes are the high price of everything. These tax eliminations are spending cuts. Every tax that is eliminated is a tax that we the people no longer have to pay. These taxes are the difference between the price we pay for health care and everything else, and the price we would pay if these taxes were repealed. Eliminating these taxes will remove them from the price paid for everything by everyone, including government.
One Tax and Done will provide many benefits to all, even government:
One Tax and Done will reduce the price paid for everything by one-third.

To improve the dollar
The headline says, “Rejection of Dollars Increases Overseas”.

This is what we can do about it:

Travelers, “See America First”: Visit the fifty states and the Nation’s Capitol.

Don’t waste our resources, food and energy, on the global warming hoax. Don’t waste Welfare, Healthcare, Schooling, and Employment on illegal aliens. Repeal every law allowing benefits for illegal aliens.

Bring home our soldiers and equipment from FDR’s War. Have them round up and deport the millions of illegal aliens; patrol our borders; and build the wall along our border. Fund this with the billions of dollars presently paid out to protect Germany.

Don’t give our money and food to the UN and other countries. Three trillion dollars and many millions of tons of grain are enough waste. Move the UN to Greenland.

Drill our own offshore and ANWR oil and natural gas. Build all the refineries we need, so we can stop importing gasoline. Stop diluting gasoline with alcohol, reducing its efficiency. Build nuclear and coal-fired power plants.

Add value to the dollar by repealing hostile-to-business taxes, removing them from the price paid for everything, ending the federal deficit, and enabling paying off the national debt. This could stop businesses from outsourcing factories and jobs to foreign countries.

for SNAFU
SNAFU writes: "How about a new concept: people need to do a better job at managing their own risk."

I think what Obama is referring to is the way that Wall Street sold subprime debt on the secondary market and gave it "AAA" (high) ratings. Other investment houses would buy anything rated "AAA," so that debt got sold and resold until it had leaked into investments all over the world.

Wall Street was happy to rate homeowner debt--even subprime debt--as "safe," because "everybody knows that housing prices always go up." Well, they don't.

WindyCityEagle
"Well it was a loan", How about the government giving me a million dollar loan. I go to Vegas and gamble it. If I lose it, no skin off my back. If I win, I get to keep the winnings and give the remaining million back to the Feds.

The taxpayer is subsidizing speculative behavior. This a poor precedent.

Zapdoodat
you seem to think
Republican=conservative

infact there is a growing difference. Bush is no conservative, McCain is no conservative, which is why you see so many people around here thinking about not voting next election.


Gamblers Should Stew In Their Losses
McCain offered the only reasonable Government response: do nothing. When gamblers stew in their losses, the Market will self correct.

Clinton and Obama's plans of sending money to the losers only makes the problem worse. It rewards bad gamblers and encourages more of the same. Plus, that money that they use for rewarding the bad gamblers must come from the general public, made up of many that never gambled. So, not only does it reward bad gamblers, it punishes those that played it safe. Good grief!

And, some people will actually vote for these clowns. Sad.


Subprime Here Refers To Risky Borrowers
Stevl offers as to Subprime loans, "I think what Obama is referring to is the way that Wall Street sold subprime debt on the secondary market and gave it "AAA" (high) ratings."

Psst: For your information, the word "subprime" used in today's crisis refers to the borrowers being less than prime candidates. You are confusing the issue. Or, do you really think Obama recommends sending money to "secondary market" investors to make up for their losses?

Lenders took risks on subprime borrowers, who, lived up to their reputations and defaulted. Those poor borrowers, who had nothing before, walked away with as much or more, afterward. However, the Lenders, thinking that if all else fails, they still have equity in the homes and thought it was any easy money risk, lost a fotune when the housing market tumbled.

Now, some of those Lenders' are crying that they did not know that the borrowers were subprime, but I think they are being disengenuous -- trying to save their reputations and careers. They, like Bear Sterns, gambled thier investors monies and lost. No big deal. Let's move on.

Loans and Handouts Are Different
Zapdoodat asks as to handouts, "Like the $230 billion handout Wall Street got last week."?

Not true.

Certainly, the Government made some money available, for a price, to help JP Morgan negotiate the debts piled up by Bear Sterns. However, unlike the money that Clinton/Obama want to dish out, this money is expected back, with interest.

One is called a loan, the other a handout. Try not to confuse the two. The difference is important.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.