IntenseDebate - backtotheplate

11 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - Ann Coulter Calls Libe... · 1 reply · +6 points

I bristle any time Reagan is dumped in with the big spenders. He DID spend big to win the Cold War (and that produced a great budget-balancing dividend for Clinton) but not nearly as big if Dems hadn't deemed his balanced budget proposals "dead on arrival." He'd read and understood von Mises. But he had a bigger mission to accomplish first.
Otherwise, I concur with the post. (Bush II had no excuse, but then he pulled the wool over no one's eyes; he said before taking office he was both a Keynesian and a supply-sider.) However, sometimes just staying home or ignoring a particular race in the voting booth has to be the better answer. There are Libertarian Candidates who are social libertarians, supporting abortion and the growing profanations of marriage, and I'd never vote for them.
But I do want Karl Rove and the Rep establishment to get a BIG lesson, particularly after what they pulled in Mississippi with Cochran. Just staying home if you're a Tea Party Republican might do the trick there. That's much more important than winning the Senate. Karl Rove-ism must not endure into another election.

11 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - Matt Drudge Reports on... · 0 replies · +3 points

I'm not arguing that point. And I'm sorry if I suggested that we should have had a mission to make South Korea, let alone Iraq, a success story. And I'm not defending neoconservatism. What I'm saying is that, when you are left with the result of unwarranted "meddling," you may have the opportunity to make something good come out of it, or you can blithely turn it into a total disaster. We helped make something splendid out of South Korea. The Democrats forced us to cut and run in Vietnam (which, under JFK and LBJ, they sank us into) and it resulted in one of the world's greatest holocausts. Iraq may have been a mistake (I think so) because of Bush, but it is becoming a total disaster because of Obama.

11 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - Matt Drudge Reports on... · 3 replies · +1 points

Again, the loss is a direct result of the OBAMA Administration's policies. Since the Korean War, where an armed and avaricious North Korea and a rapacious Communist major power in the region, China, has desired the obliteration of South Korea, the U.S. has maintained a military presence that has allowed South Korea to become one of world's major success stories: economically and morally. Today we still have about 28,500 soldiers, sailors, marines, etc., there as that military presence.
That large an active U.S. military presence in Iraq would have prevented al Qaeda incursions, the institution of Sharia law, and the influence of Iran for as long as it remained. It would probably have debilitated al Qaeda and the Taliban further.
I'm not saying Iraq was the right decision in the first place. I'd love a do-over on this one. And neoconservatism is trigger-happy and compulsive about nation-building, and it has cost us. But what is occurring there now is not a direct result of our war in Iraq. It's a direct result of Barack Obama's abandoning the idea of a military presence to protect the peace and frustrate our enemy's desires. Obama, who once proclaimed that everything was going to be hunky-dory in Iraq as we left, has handed Islamic terrorism a gift, pure and simple.

11 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - Iraq in Chaos. A Total... · 1 reply · +14 points

While I do now believe the war was a mistake, it's hard to say what's happened in Iraq was a total defeat for Bush's policies when he was succeeded by a president who dedicated himself to SABOTAGING those policies.

12 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - Obama Trying To Drop H... · 0 replies · +2 points

I'm confused as to whether or not "all tax deductions" includes those for charity, medical and work expenses, mortgage, etc. Does "all" mean all, including the 1040 Standard Deduction? This report just focused on defined contributions and IRAs.
Regardless, my wife and I combined made a very middle class $80,000 before taxes last year. In just IRA and defined contributions, we put into savings 57.5%. The year before, 47% -- savings which will be taxed when withdrawn.
Add in "all" deductions, and the percentages are 77.5% last year, 69.8% in 2011.
I realize that's extreme, but the point is that middle class taxpayers DO occasionally save for the future (I'm 62 now, and have saved above 28% in just defined contributions and IRAs since I was 48). I've already been penalized more than $500/year in taxes by Obamacare in over-the-counter drugs and a $2,500 per year family limit being placed on FLEX accounts (I can't imagine how that maximum hits a middle class family with, say, 6 kids).
Any notion that these policies are intended to take just from the wealthy or help the middle class to save is ridiculous.

12 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - Are You Smarter Than a... · 1 reply · +1 points

Fumbled at the goal line. Missed the last one! 32 out of 33. I'd be ashamed of my kid's high school home room teacher if she only got a 55, let alone a college prof.

12 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - America's Afghanistan ... · 0 replies · +6 points

Obama should have to account for his 2008-9 assessment that Afghanistan was "a war of necessity" and required a surge-like effort to defeat the Taliban. This war truly became his eagerly adopted baby, although I imagine the leftwing media will curiously forget they once remembered that. It made him look the "tough guy" when he needed it during various election campaigns.

12 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - Pope Says Atheists Can... · 0 replies · +1 points

I don't know. Maybe they were sincere. Let's ask Francis!

12 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - Pope Says Atheists Can... · 4 replies · +7 points

Well, there goes the notion that popes will necessarily go to Heaven.

12 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - No, the Bible Does Not... · 0 replies · +3 points

Dr. North's theological refutation of Ms. Hamill's screed is spot on, but, as a former math major, I am still tying to figure out Ms. Hamill's argument against regressive (which to her means anything non-progressive) tax structures: "the percentage of [higher income earners'] income needed to pay the tax liability shrinks to smaller percentages as their income climbs to higher levels."

How does that work? If I make $1 million after deductions with a 10% tax rate, I pay $100,000. If I make $2 million, I pay $200,000. How are those different percentages of my income?

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with backtotheplate

People I'm following

backtotheplate