By Wayne Allyn Root, Former Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee
Posted at LP.org blog:
Is an entire country being run based on “marble envy?” As a child I’m willing to bet that Obama felt short changed of his share of marbles. Unfortunately this made him obsessed with taking other kids’ marbles (or as he called it “redistributing them”). I’ll bet he was good at it. So good that no kids were willing to play with him ever again. He became a lonely kid, dreaming of growing up to run the country, make all the rules, and take marbles away from everyone.
Unfortunately people rarely change. The way you think as a kid is often the base of your philosophy and personality for the rest of your life. Because as an adult, Obama’s entire life has certainly been built around the idea of government stealing from successful people who worked hard and earned their money, to redistribute it to those who don’t.
First Obama tried to redistribute wealth before he was President, by leading the charge to force banks to make loans to lower income Americans who could not afford to own homes (through the Community Reinvestment Act). Affirmative action for homes didn’t work out so well. That idea imploded the housing market, and led to the destruction of the entire U.S. economy.
Obama did not realize there is a difference between marbles and homes. Marbles are free to kids. Homes come with a mortgage, insurance, repairs and property taxes. Just because you want something, or because it seems “fair” that everyone should have it, doesn’t mean everyone can afford it, or is responsible enough to pay for it month after month.
Then Obama was elected President- on the strength of his promise to give his voters all the marbles they wanted. Soon Obama was busy trying to recreate his childhood and wipe away all that pain and jealousy. He wanted to give everyone equal marbles. But to do that, he’d have to find a way to take the marbles away from those that earned them.
So Obama came up with new and creative ways to target, punish, and tax the rich, while at the same time handing out more goodies and treats than ever before to the poor (ie Obama voters). He redistributed trillions of dollars through the largest stimulus program in U.S. history; the largest increase in food stamps in U.S. history (45 million Americans); the largest free healthcare program in U.S. history (Obamacare); and let’s not forget welfare checks designed to look like “tax cuts” handed to people who never paid taxes.
Obama’s voters were swimming in marbles. His childhood dreams had come true. But there was a problem. Jobs were disappearing. The more marbles Obama tried to steal from the rich, the fewer jobs were available for everyone else, and the more people lost their homes. Funny how that works.
Obama was angry and confused. So he doubled down. More marbles would have to be stolen by government and redistributed. Since housing was at the center of America’s economic collapse under Obama, he turned his attention to the redistribution of housing.
But how do you redistribute housing? Obama’s lonely childhood made him very creative. He came up with endless ideas for redistribution of marbles. Part I of his housing redistribution plan is to rescue the Obama voters who can’t afford their homes. So Obama proposes forcing banks who are broke because government encouraged them to give loans to lower income people who weren’t qualified…to refinance those underwater mortgages without regard for whether this is economic suicide for the banks. Obama will try any reckless scheme to keep lower income Obama voters in their homes that they can’t afford- at least until the election. This is affirmative action for mortgages.
Here is where Part II comes in. Obama isn’t happy just handing marbles to the poor. He’s also got to take them away from the rich. So he desperately plans and plots to eliminate or greatly reduce the mortgage tax deduction for wealthy homeowners- thereby ruining the values of their homes, forcing many of them into foreclosures or short sales, and destabilizing upscale neighborhoods across the USA. No one interested in boosting the housing market could possibly suggest eliminating the mortgage deduction, could they? Well they could, but only if their obsession was to wipe out wealthy homeowers.
This is the ultimate housing redistribution plan by the Marxist-in-Chief Barack Obama. Think of the beauty and brilliance of this plan. Government keeps people who can’t afford their homes, in their homes, without regard for the rule of law or contracts. At the same time government raises taxes so high on wealthy people, and eliminates their legal mortgage deductions (that have been in place a lifetime), thereby forcing people who can afford their homes, and have responsibly paid their obligations, to lose their homes. Brilliant. Columbia professors Cloward & Pivens would be so proud.
The goal is simple. My hero Ronald Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes to starve the government and empower the individual. Obama has the opposite goal- to starve his political opposition (business owners and high income Americans) with dramatic tax increases and loss of deductions that damage them financially, thereby leaving them powerless to stop him from exploding the size of government.
This is the Obama plan. And it all started with a young boy’s marble envy.
Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee. He is the best-selling author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts.” His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com.
76 tb: Shouldn’t libertarians insist on equality under the law?
me: Circling back to this, I would say Yes (although I don’t find “insisting” to be the right word for me…more like “advocate.”)
Rothbardian Ls I do believe would say No IF the law is unjust. Taxation is unjust, therefore the law can and should be evaded by any means necessary, according to them, I do believe.
Of course, when there is no State and the law is whatever the individual and his/her chosen insurance company says it is, the idea of “equality” becomes inapplicable. The law in Blantonia differs from the law in Knappsterville, and so on.
83 tb, after MNR settled into his atomistic nonarchist (tautological) model sometime in the 60s, his views remained the same, near as I can tell. He did switch up some of his political alliances.
I’m virtually certain that Mr. Libertarian never wavered from his Revealed Knowledge that all tax preferences are be retained as a escape from State theft. The ONLY L position is to reduce tax rates to zero as quickly as possible. Any base broadening of any kind is statist, according to The Oracle of Brooklyn.
We could seek confirmation from the one of the Anointed Proteges (e.g., Rockwell, Block or Gordon), but I’m virtually positive they would consider you a statist, Brother Blanton.
If so, welcome to the club!
Michael, become a masculinist now! Burn the neckties that bind you down by the tyranny of the matriarchal society!
I own five neckties. I sorry! 🙁
Rothbardian?
Which Rothbard are we talking about? The new left Rothbard or the old right Rothbard? The anarchist Rothbard or the paleoconservative Rothbard? The “For a New Liberty” Rothbard or the Buchanan for President Rothbard?
I’m not planning on visiting Auburn – I don’t own any neckties and I don’t care for mint juleps.
80 tk: Why is it any of the government’s business whether I’m using my money to buy a home as opposed to a car, or an Xbox 360, or heroin?
me: It isn’t. I advocate a flat tax, and I lean toward a citizen’s dividend.
You’ll have to take your question up with a Rothbardian. You and Blanton have established that you are not welcome in Auburn! 😉
“you can pay one tax bill or two. If you pay one, all of your taxes go to the government. If you pay two, part of your taxes goes to the government and the other part goes to our campaign contributors in the home-building, home-selling and mortgage lending industries.”
Bingo!
Consider this:
Rich guy owns home free and clear. Rich guy wants to buy a yacht. Rich guy gets mortgage. Rich guy gets mortgage interest deduction. He gets to keep more of what he earns.
Contrast with this:
Middle-class couple buys first home. Mortgage interest paid does not exceed standard deduction. Couple does not itemize as using mortgage interest deduction as they wold pay more in taxes. Couple takes standard deduction. Mortgage interest is of no use to them and does not result in them getting to keep more of what they earn.
My conclusion is that if you cling to the statism, at least make taxation to pay for it equitable. Scrap the mortgage interest deduction and reduce taxes across the board for everyone – poor, rich, renters and homeowners.
RC@79,
—–
IMO, it’s not a “subsidy,” but it surely is a “preference.”
—–
I could make an argument for both.
In direct terms, it’s a “preference.”
All other things being equal, your tax bill is $X.
Do something government wants you to do, and it’s $X-[preference amount].
The obvious question that raises is why not just make everyone’s tax bill $X-[preference amount]? Why is it any of the government’s business whether I’m using my money to buy a home as opposed to a car, or an Xbox 360, or heroin?
And the answer to THAT question is where it becomes a subsidy. The Mortgage Interest Deduction is basically just a way of saying “you can pay one tax bill or two. If you pay one, all of your taxes go to the government. If you pay two, part of your taxes goes to the government and the other part goes to our campaign contributors in the home-building, home-selling and mortgage lending industries.”
76 tb: No matter how you frame it, the mortgage interest deduction is a backdoor subsidy to the real estate industry (which lobbies for it) and homeowners.
me: I seem to recall that you disclaim being a Rothbardian, and this statement confirms that. MNR is rolling over in his grave about this, esp. for the use of the word “subsidy.”
On this, I’m the Rothbardian! IMO, it’s not a “subsidy,” but it surely is a “preference.”
Root: “Entitlements are far different. Thats stealing from me. Your giving money to people who did not earn it.”
Very true — and an excellent reason to end all foreign aid, including to Israel.
Also a great reason to end entitlements to the U.S. war & occupation machine and its national police state infrastructure.
Wayne you are overlooking a few things. The MID is a government policy that is intended to encourage people to buy homes. That is what started the bubble that just blew up to begin with; government policies to encourage people to buy homes.
Secondly the MID acts to drive up the price of housing. Some have suggested that it increases the price by as much as 40% others suggest as little as 5%, as I recall.
Once you have a government policy the drives up the price you get another government policy to make it easier to purchase a home.
Thus you have one government policy creating a demand for another government policy.
And somewhat last but not least the MID is not available to all home owners who pay a mortgage.
The real last point, the Libertarian Party seeks to abolish the income tax, not replace it with another tax which is what your flat tax is.
Cut the spending and open the markets.
No matter how you frame it, the mortgage interest deduction is a backdoor subsidy to the real estate industry (which lobbies for it) and homeowners. It would be far more equitable to eliminate the deduction and reduce taxes across the board for everyone, including those who worked hard and prudently paid off their mortgages.
I assume that Root believes that government should not imprison people unjustly, or at least claim to believe that. If that is the case, would Root applaud the fact that some rich kid with a gram of coke gets no jail time, but some poor kid with a gram of crack goes to jail?
Of course it would be a good thing that the rich kid doesn’t go to jail, but do libertarians really believe that government should pick winners and losers?
If one person is jailed and another is not, how is that just? Or is it OK that at least not everyone goes to jail?
Shouldn’t libertarians insist on equality under the law?
If so, shouldn’t that include equality regarding taxation, if there must be taxation?
I also believe the earned income tax credit is wrong and it does hurt taxpayers, but having special tax breaks for some hurts taxpayers also in that it reduces revenue, thereby increasing debt that must eventually be repaid.
Wayne can get it through his thick Republican skull that there is no such thing as a tax break or a tax cut when there is no spending cut.
Since he believes the government should reward the productive, how can he favor a tax break for someone with a mortgage, but not a tax break for someone productive enough to pay off their mortgage or save the money to buy a house outright?
It seems in Wayne’s World, only some people deserve to keep what they earn and that is “certainly fair and a good thing” to him.
What I complain about is stealing money from those that earn it, to give it to those that don’t.
That subtle difference may be lost to IPR readers.
Letting a homeowner take a mortgage interest deduction is simply allowing that homeowner to keep more of his own money. It’s his money in the first place. You are reducing your taxes. By Libertarian standards, thats a good thing.
Entitlements are far different. Thats stealing from me. Your giving money to people who did not earn it. Where does it come from? Does money grow on trees? No it comes from those that pay taxes- ie homeowners and small business owners.
You can call it “social engineering.”
i call one a tax break for taxpayers.
I call the other theft.
If I make $250,000 this year and I get to keep an extra $10,000 because of mortgage interest deduction that is certainly fair and a good thing.
If I earn -0- this year and the federal government hands me an earned income tax credit…that’s welfare…it hurts taxpayers…adds debt…hurts the private sector and kills jobs.
Big difference.
73 wf, yes, conservatives make that general statement of opposition to “social engineering.” Ls often do, too. My sense is conservatives and Ls generally critique social engineering when it comes to things like affirmative action. Ls — especially still under the sway of Rothbard — often oppose any income tax base broadening, as tax preferences allow the individual to mitigate what they call “theft.”
My view is that all laws are, in a sense, “social engineering,” so I don’t critique it per se. Manipulating the tax code to change behavior is generally a dysfunctional idea, so I’d certainly like to see the manipulation kept to a minimum.
ATC, I’d say, though, that a low, simple, flat tax would be a net improvement over the current code.
Root’s concern is contextual…Obama’s made noises about restricting the mortgage interest deduction as a means in increase revenue. I agree with him on that point.
I know that conservatives dislike social engineering, but isn’t that what the mortgage interest deduction is?
66 rd, and, yes, that’d be another example of a claim that requires mind reading…..
50 wr: Follow the dots. Obama spends us into bankruptcy and increases the debt more than all other Presidents in U.S. history combined, then announces because we are now broke and heavily in debt, we must eliminate or drastically reduce the mortgage interest deduction on upper income taxpayers.
me: Technically, the US is not bankrupt, either. “This would read more accurately if it said: Follow the dots. Obama [is spending] us into bankruptcy and [is on track to increase] the debt …”
I would love to debate Wayne Root, maybe then, he’d answer one of my questions.
Wayne@67,
You made one claim (that Obama has done X).
Politifact affirmed a very different claim (that if Obama gets exactly the budgets he wants for the next two years, OMB predicts that he eventually will have done X).
If you say that Abe Vigoda will eventually die, you’re making a pretty safe prediction. If you say that Abe Vigoda is already dead, you’re just flat wrong.
65 cd: You’re lying, Capozzi. You don’t find it “curious.”Because your statement implies that you don’t believe in “correct” positions, but that can’t possibly be true. (So you must be lying.) If your mind were really so infantile as to not believe that any position is ever “correct,” you’d be paralyzed into inaction.
ME: I guess I should address this. Sorry, I do find it curious, because it’s my practice to always be open to the possibility that I am misunderstanding someone else. Perhaps I am mistaken. I prefer to be happy over “right.” Opinions – near as I can tell – are never right, they are simply opinions (paradoxically, an opinion itself!). I act on my opinions all day long, based on what I observe and what action seems indicated at the time. You seem to offer confused logic here (Sipos?). Don’t you ever do something with ambivalence, uncertainty? If you are always certain about everything, my guess is you are a VERY rare individual. You should write a book. I’d certainly 😉 read THAT one!
Sorry to break all your hearts but the fact checking has been done by independent source Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/10/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-will-add-more-debt-4/
Knapp: “I think Root looked a little closer, liked the profit potential, and has simply repurposed the same old material, replacing ‘Clinton’ with ‘Obama’ and varying the details here and there. Not because he thinks it will get him elected president, but because he thinks it will pay off his mortgage.”
A logical analysis. And very likely true.
Of course, Capozzi, is liable to accuse you of “mind reading” Root.
Capozzi: “I do find the notion of a ‘correct’ position rather curious.”
You’re lying, Capozzi. You don’t find it “curious.”
How do I know this?
Because your statement implies that you don’t believe in “correct” positions, but that can’t possibly be true. (So you must be lying.)
If your mind were really so infantile as to not believe that any position is ever “correct,” you’d be paralyzed into inaction.
You wouldn’t even be able to turn on your computer. After all, who’s to say what’s the “correct” way to turn on a computer? Indeed, who’s to say that a computer can only function while it is on?
This is why you’re such a dishonest “debater.” You spout silly statements that you yourself can’t possibly believe.
JT@54,
“Does Wayne even bother to check if grandiose claims like this are true?”
I think there’s an implicit premise check to be done here that goes to whether or not it matters if he gets the facts right.
In the 1990s, all kinds of weird, wild claims were thrown around about the Clinton administration — it was “the most left-wing administration in history,” “the most corrupt administration in history,” etc. — both of those claims could be disproved with the utterance of one word (“Nixon”), but they were underpinned by a constantly proliferating web of conspiracy theories (Whitewater, the alleged murders of Vince Foster and Ron Brown, the “Clinton death list,” etc.), none of them very viable and most of them pretty stupid if you got underneath the surface at all.
The funny thing about the people purveying those theories is that they didn’t have much electoral success (the 1994 Republican sweep occurred before they really got going — their real electoral fruit was Dole-Kemp 1996 and having to go to SCOTUS to steal the 2000 presidential election) ….
… but if you looked a little closer, they made a lot of money at that racket. In fact, one of them is now personally much more moderate, but heads the $25-million-per-year outfit that Root writes as a columnist for.
Personally, I think Root looked a little closer, liked the profit potential, and has simply repurposed the same old material, replacing “Clinton” with “Obama” and varying the details here and there. Not because he thinks it will get him elected president, but because he thinks it will pay off his mortgage.
First of all, “printing more fake money” increases inflation, not debt.
Second, the interventionist policies Wayne describes are NOT Marxist. Marxist theory says that the international worker’s revolution will only occur after capitalism has reached its full development. The interventionist and redistributionist policies Wayne rails against would hinder capitalism from reaching its full development, and (theoretically) relieve some of the economic pressure on the workers. Therefore, it would actually POSTPONE the workers revolution which Marxists want to hasten.
Yes, I know that some self-described Marxists support those policies, but just because they misunderstand Marxist theory doesn’t mean that we should, too.
PROOF that Reagan was a secret MARXIST!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJ-Fs1ikA
I want an answer from Mr. Root, who praises Reagan for the “good things” yet blames the Democrats in Congress for the “bad.”
That’s what Republicans always do when the holiness of their dead cult leader is questioned.
Though, I know that Wayne will not answer my questions because I’ve been critical of him in the past.
@TB – I want an answer from Mr. Root, who praises Reagan for the “good things” yet blames the Democrats in Congress for the “bad.”
Darryl, you already know the answer to your question. You understand correctly.
The implication being that if one party controls both the White House and Congress, everything would be wonderful.
You know, like it was for those years during the Bush regime when the GOP was in total control – damn things were so good then.
Makes you wonder who his sources are, doesn’t it? Maybe he checks the same wrong source 3 times.
His sources are the talking points of the day from the right wing talk radio echo chamber which are the same as the right wing talking points at Newsmax or Worldnet Daily.
So, he is either checking the same source 3 times or checking 3 different sources that have the same talking points. It is fairly obvious that Root can’t tell the difference between fact and political rhetoric designed to benefit the Republican Party – unless his game is to benefit the Republican Party.
What a wonderful spokesperson Wayne is for the Libertarian Party – as if the cretins that buy this shit would ever support anything other than a Republican. Does anyone believe his target audience would throw away their precious vote when the future of the nation is at stake, threatened by a secret Muslim Marxist conspiring to destroy America and Israel?
Big time image problem – unless that is the image the LP wants and apparently, many LP members do want that image or believe it will be beneficial somehow.
Allow me to re-ask my question from #23
Let me see if I understand: a Republican President gets credit for anything good that happens during his term, while the Democrats in Congress get blamed for anything bad during his term (and vice-versa Democratic President blamed while praising Republicans in Congress)?
JT @ 54: Wayne has insisted several times on IPR that he “triple-checks” everything. Makes you wonder who his sources are, doesn’t it? Maybe he checks the same wrong source 3 times.
Knapp: “It may be that Obama will increase the US government’s debt more than all previous presidents combined, but as of now he hasn’t even increased it as much as the last president did.”
And a Republican Congress as well.
Does Wayne even bother to check if grandiose claims like this are true? He seems to have a hell of a lot more respect for Ronald Reagan than for reality.
Bush presided over the formation of the government in Iraq, adopting Sharia law as a basis for the constitution.
Not only is the Iraqi Constitution based on Sharia Law, but so is the Afghanistan Constitution.
http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/current_constitution.html
BTW, the Constitution of the Afghan puppet state was forced on the people there by our republican regime led by George “Mission Accomplished” Bush.
PEACE
@50,
“Obama spends us into bankruptcy and increases the debt more than all other Presidents in U.S. history combined”
The US government’s debt as of today is about $14.9 trillion. As of him taking office, it was about $10.6 trillion. Increase in debt, $4.3 trillion.
The US government’s debt as of the beginning of George W. Bush’s first term was $5.6 trillion, as of the end of that term, $10.6 trillion. Increase in debt, $5 trillion.
It may be that Obama will increase the US government’s debt more than all previous presidents combined, but as of now he hasn’t even increased it as much as the last president did.
Bush presided over the formation of the government in Iraq, adopting Sharia law as a basis for the constitution.
Therefore, Bush must also be in on the secret Marxist/Sharia conspiracy.
How deep does this thing go?
I’m guessing that Obama is actually a clone raised by lizard people – the same lizard people that controlled Alexander Hamilton and Woodrow Wilson.
The Queen of England, the CIA, and the KGB groomed Obama to become President. Soon we will all be wards of the state living in concentration camps and forced to build giant pyramids.
Once the pyramids are built, God will reveal himself to be a 900 foot tall vampire alien being who actually wrote the Bible and the Communist Manifesto. Then He destroys Israel.
Wayne, am I on the right track here?
New Root post at http://www.lp.org/blogs/wayne-allyn-root/root-the-obama-plan-insanity-or-brilliant …I hope one of our other IPR writers posts it here as a story for discussion soon. In the meantime here it is as a comment.
By Wayne Allyn Root, Former Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee
Everything is out of order in Obama’s world. Up is down, day is night, round is square. None of it makes any sense. None of it has any chance of working. Yet the adoring sheep who support Obama and the national media (I know- I repeat myself) goes along with all of it, believes the lies, and asks no questions. Obama says the world is flat- and the media applauds.
Let’s just examine a few developments in the past week:
First we have the housing crisis. Obama’s solution to the problem that millions of Americans can’t afford to live in their homes, or pay their mortgages (because banks were pushed by government to use the criteria of affirmative action to award mortgages), is to force those same banks to allow people to stay even longer in the homes they can’t afford. Not just insanity, but insanity squared.
The rule of law doesn’t matter. Contracts no longer matter. The ability to pay your bills no longer matters. Bankrupting our banking system no longer matters. All that matters is handing bribes to potential Obama voters. It’s all straight from the Karl Marx playbook (as interpreted by Columbia professors Cloward & Piven) – overwhelm the system with debt and entitlements, and make every voter possible dependent on big government.
Obama’s voters obviously believe money grows on trees. They also believe the way to solve a debt crisis is by printing more fake money, and therefore creating more debt. Up is down, the world is flat. The adoring media applauds. And you wonder why there are no jobs?
Follow the dots. Obama spends us into bankruptcy and increases the debt more than all other Presidents in U.S. history combined, then announces because we are now broke and heavily in debt, we must eliminate or drastically reduce the mortgage interest deduction on upper income taxpayers.
A successful business owner has to pay his or her mortgage and property taxes in full. Now you’re asking them to also pay for millions of others to live in their homes for free, or at greatly reduced prices, subsidized by the taxpayer. And at the same time, you are taking away the taxpayer’s mortgage interest deduction- so he or she is now overwhelmed by taxes and bills from all sides. Karl Marx is looking up and cheering from his grave.
But Obama is only getting warmed up. Next he came out with his solution for the student loan crisis. Students who borrow from the government (i.e. the U.S. taxpayer) will now only have to pay 10% of their income as a maximum, and have all their debt forgiven after 20 years. Sounds great! But once again, I hate to spoil the party, but where will the money come from?
Let’s do simple math. A student graduates college with $100,000 in debt. They land a $25,000 job. They are now asked to only pay $2500 per year (10% of their income). After 20 years, they’ve paid $50,000. But the original loan with interest has certainly doubled to $200,000 by now. The remaining $150,000 is erased according to Obama’s rules. Where does that $150,000 come from? It can’t just disappear. Someone has to pay the bill.
Once again, this is where Karl Marx comes in. As a “rich taxpayer” no one pays my bills. I’m stuck paying in full. My daughter currently attends an Ivy League university. Because I’m “rich,” my family pays full freight. I have 3 more young children coming up behind her. Assuming that they study hard and also get admitted to top tier schools, our family will spend close to $1,000,000 for their college educations.
But Obama now says “the rich” should also pay for everyone else’s kids too. When Obama erases their $150,000 student loan debt, others are stuck with the bill. Multiply that by millions of lower income students and you get the idea. Obama’s plan is obviously to overwhelm society’s most productive citizens until they are rich no more and no longer able to employ others. Then everyone becomes dependent on government. Meanwhile Obama’s voters pay no taxes, but get all the benefits. Under Obama up is down, the world is flat.
But all that pales in comparison to Obama’s “achievements” in the Middle East. Gaddafi is dead. The war in Iraq is over. Mubarak is on trial in Egypt. Victories for freedom and democracy, right? Sadly, no. Obama and his inept lackeys have once again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And who is most hurt — women. How you ask? This week, Libya’s new leaders announced that Sharia would become the law of the land. Egypt is moving in the same direction. And, as soon as the U.S. leaves Iraq, Sharia is sure to be made the law there also.
How does that affect women? Sharia law requires women to cover themselves from head to toe in burqas (so they don’t tempt men to rape them), forbids women from driving or even being out of the home without a male escort, makes them second class citizens by limiting their education and job opportunities, and makes it legal for women to be stoned and murdered in so-called ‘honor killings’ by their ‘enlightened’ husbands, brothers, and uncles.
U.S. taxpayers spent billions of dollars (we don’t have), risked and sacrificed American lives, to install Sharia law that brutalizes women and violates basic human rights towards women and Christians, in countries where the people hate us. Radical Islam wins. Civilization loses. America is a joke. Israel faces extinction. Obama calls this “victory.” U.S. feminists say nothing. Obama says the world is flat- and the media applauds.
Under Obama — up is down, day is night, round is square, the world is flat. It’s all insanity.
The only thing that makes sense that is true and clear, is that Karl Marx is at the root of all of it.
Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee. He is the best-selling author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts.” His web site: http://www.ROOTforAmerica.com
48 rb, you’d said “getting somewhat better,” which is on the tame side of intra-L judgmentalism. My comment is offered in the larger context of intra-L warfare as I perceive it, and I offer not psychoanalysis, but basic ethics and behavior.
And, sure, I have no idea what the world will be like when I give up the ghost. I simply offer what I believe the odds to be. In, say, 2 or 3 decades, my guess is that State will still be quite large, despite my hope that it will be drifting down below 10% of GDP… Ls should take a huge bow if it can be reduced to 30%.
Robert Capozzi
I am not judging anyone to any extent that I do not implicitly expect to be judged. I have no idea why you think I am being any more “judgmental” in a negative sense than anyone else who has commented here.
You seem to be intent on intentionally twisting words, at least that is how it seems. I am not interested in playing those games.
I am not “tearing down” anyone and I don’t care what label they stick on themselves or anyone else sticks on them – “libertarian,” “leftist” or whatever. To the extent that I agree with them, I’ll pronounce my “judgment” and to the extent that I disagree with them I will pronounce my “judgment” as well (normal humans take this process for granted, of course).
I don’t recall saying anyone here is my enemy. My enemy are the people that are actively working to . take away our lives, liberty, property and opportunity. Leading Democrat and Republican politicians would be among those.
To the extent that other people advocate the ideas that enable those evildoers, including anything that plays into the hands of lesser evil mythology, they are to some extent my enemy (and their own enemy, if they are not part of the small crony corporatist/statist privileged class).
I have no idea when I will die or what the world will be like at that point. I don’t think you do either.
Now, if you, Wayne Root, or anyone else would like to discuss what I actually said, rather than impugning my motives or reading things into what I said I may be tempted to continue this discussion. It appears that Root has probably moved on so most likely I will do the same.
I’ll leave your pseudopsychoanalysis, or whatever it is, to yourself and anyone else that may be interested
in it. I’m not.
Robert & Rob,
Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right… and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy’s? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You’ve made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait till I get going! Now, where was I?
Man in Black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder’s origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You’re just stalling now.
Vizzini: You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you? You’ve beaten my giant, which means you’re exceptionally strong, so you could’ve put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you’ve also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You’re trying to trick me into giving away something. It won’t work.
Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU’VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!
Man in Black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose – What in the world can that be?
Man in Black: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]
Man in Black: What? Where? I don’t see anything.
Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. First, let’s drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.
Man in Black, Vizzini: [Vizzini and the Man in Black drink]
Man in Black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That’s what’s so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders – The most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” – but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line”! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha…
Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly, his smile frozen on his face and falls to the ground dead]
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.
45 rb: If you say for instance, that cannibalism is OK …I would have to say no, your beliefs are not just different, they are wrong.
me: I respect that you find my ideas about what constitutes civil discourse to be circuitous, but I’d suggest it’s maybe 80% of this game. Cannibalism seems inappropriate to me, except perhaps in certain circumstances. Some believe that eating animals is “wrong,” others don’t. Then there’s the fruitatarians!
Do you appreciate being judged? If not, then how can you justify judging others?
I guess I just don’t get why Ls seem so keen on tearing down other Ls from other schools of thought. No matter what message is presented to the wider public, odds are REALLY, REALLY high that when we die, there will be a State, and it will be big. The best we can do is offer less hurtful, less intrusive ways for the government to operate, and convince enough people to rollback the State somewhere between where it is now and 0.
The way I see it, Root and his ideas are not “the enemy.” Knapp and his ideas are not the enemy, either. I’d even suggest that Obama and Boehner are not even the enemy, but their ideas don’t work and instead amplifying the dysfunction rather than remediating it.
44 RC: I don’t know why you keep thinking I mean something than what I say or that I am condescending.
I take it for granted that it is understood that everything I say already implies that it is my opinion as of the time I say it and that I don’t have to point out that tautology repeatedly. So if it helps you feel free to add “from my perspective at this point in time” before or after every paragraph, sentence or word – whatever works for you.
If you want to continue to read things into what I say I have no idea what I can do to fix it. My apologies if my words convey something to you other than what I meant by them.
And to answer your question yes, I have changed my mind on numerous questions over the years.
I believe now that I am correct now and that I was wrong then. If you believe something else then I disagree with you. And if that seems grandiose or sanctimonious to you rest assured it does not seem that way to me. We’ll just have to disagree on that whole “just different” thing.
If you say for instance, that cannibalism is OK (I am not saying that you would say that, it is just an example) I would have to say no, your beliefs are not just different, they are wrong. The same would go for any other issue where our opinions differ, even if at one time my views were the same on it as yours are now.
This does not mean that I am not wrong now, maybe I am. But I believe that I am right now and I believe that should not have to be explained.
Now I have done all the circuitous navel gazing that I have time for and then some. I hope you are not offended if I decline to pursue any further meandering down this particular tangent.
42 rb: What you believe is up to you.
me: Well, that’s mighty magnanimous of you. I do find the notion of a “correct” position rather curious. I wonder if you have ever changed your view on anything. If so, you were “correct” until you were no long “correct,” as it was replaced by a new “correct” position.
How ’bout just “different”? Less charged. Lacks grandiosity. Allows for adjustment over time. Sanctimony free.
Wayne: “My hero Ronald Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes to starve the government and empower the individual.”
You don’t “starve the government” by just dramatically cutting taxes. The federal government can still get more money from borrowing or printing, which I’m sure you realize. To a certain extent, as supply-siders in Reagan’s administration argued, even cutting taxes will generate more revenue for the government. The only way to “starve the government” is by dramatically cutting spending (in real terms).
And by the way, Reagan vetoed hardly anything during 8 years in office and had a Republican Senate for 6 years.
Not condescending at all. My standard is obviously compared to what I believe the correct positions are. What you believe is up to you.
39 rb: I think you [Root] are getting somewhat better but there is still much work to be done.
me: Is it just me, or is this condescending, possibly tinged with contempt? As if RB has some Platonic standard by which he measures others…”better”.
Hey, I am pleased that Root has moved in my direction, too, and it’d be great if he agreed with me 100% of the time. But I could say that about anyone!
“I’ve said on a thousand public occassions that Reagan’s mistake was not cutting spending dollar for dollar with tax cuts.
I’ve said on a thousand occasions I stand for massive cuts in spending and entitlements.”
I am glad we agree about those things.
“I wish the Democratic Congress under Reagan had not spent so recklessly.”
Reagan was not stupid, he knew he had a veto pen. The reason they spent so recklessly was because the areas he wanted to expand government in were more important to him than those he supposedly wanted to cut.
Of course, saddling future generations with debt is relatively consequence free for politicians – they will be out of office by then, and if they are not they know the voters have short memories and little understanding. They think they are getting something for nothing in defiance of rudimentary logic. In fact many are so clueless that they think they are getting free money from the government when they get their income tax refunds.
Make no mistake – Reagan and the Democrats in Congress were partners in crime.
“I wish the Democratic Congress after Reagan had not spent the “Reagan peace dividend” so recklessly.”
There was no Reagan peace dividend. What there was was a vastly expanded military-industrial complex hungry to be fed new wars and new enemies. Drug traffickers and then Islamic extremists and terrorists took the place of communists as the military contractors’ excuse du jour to justify their debt-financed sucking of the taxpayers blood.
“I wish the Republican Congress under Bush had not spent so recklessly.”
You and me both. How about the Republican Congress under Clinton? Seems to me they didn’t exactly cut spending either.
“It was the reason I left the GOP. Not sure how you can fault me about that.”
I could never fault anyone for leaving the Republicans or Democrats. I won’t even fault you for not doing it sooner. But you still make too many excuses for Republicans and arguments that play into false lesser evilism for my taste. I think you are getting somewhat better but there is still much work to be done.
“Exactly what the Tea Party is protesting about.”
Too bad most tea party leaders tell their followers to vote for the supposedly lesser evil Republicans no matter what. And too bad many of them still support bloated military spending, foreign wars, homeland war on terror, drug wars, border fences and mixing church and state.
“But liberals, progressives and assorted socialists…not to mention Occupy Wall Street…all want far MORE spending.”
Actually, only some of the Occupy folks want more spending. Many of them are just as opposed to big government as they are to government connected and protected thieving megacorporations.
“And you spend your time criticizing conservatives.”
I spend my time criticizing the enablers of the Corporate-Statist crony welfare-warfare-social meddling regime, both the alleged conservatives and the alleged liberals alike.
“First I find it so funny that leftists accuse Reagan of spending too much.”
Depends on how you define leftist. Many leftists would consider me a rightist. And vice versa.
“Obama has increased the debt far more than Reagan.”
Reagan led the way in massively expanding deficits and debt. Obama is just following in those footsteps.
“But you continue to miss…or purposely ignore the difference.
Carter and Obama did the same thing…EXACT same thing…tax the rich…spend the money on social programs, welfare, food stamps. Result- economic disaster.”
And Reagan continued to fund all those programs so that he could also massively increase the already bloated, wasteful military pork as well as the drug war.
“Reagan let the successful people in this country keep more of their own money. Result- greatest economic expansion in history.”
No, he took the government on a massive credit spending binge and left the bill for those that came after him. That would be us now and in the future.
“Again, perhaps I’m talking to people who weren’t there. I was. I made a fortune in those wonderful Reagan “GO-GO Years.”
As a matter of fact I was there and did pretty well too. But much like Reagan’s spending left the tab for the future to worry about, my partying got out of hand and eventually there was a price to be paid. The country finds itself in a similar position now.
“We got a massive income tax and a small FICA increase and you are comparing the two like they cancel each other out.”
They do for millions of working people, but you forgot the most important part — the orgy of debt that still has not been paid for, but does reflect itself in mounting taxes for interest payments as well as setting a precedent for future deficit spending.
“This shows that you’ve never owned a business. Small business is what matters. Small business owners are the heroes of our economy. They create most of the jobs.”
I’ve owned several businesses with up to 100 employees at a time.
“Reagan helped them and me. The extra money I saved allowed me to start businesses and invest in homes and stocks. This is how to build an economy.
So if I made an extra 10% of $250,000 per year under Reagan…thats $25,000 extra I was allowed to keep.
And I invested it and doubled it over ten years. So Reagan over a decade made me an extra $500,000. Since that was my money in the first place…that is right thing to do.
Meanwhile he raised FICA by a point or two…that cost me perhaps $1000 a year.
That sounds like a great deal to me.”
Once again you forgot the debt. That is what is going to sink this economy and Reagan expanded it massively. Wonder how much that will cost in the long run?
“I became a self made millionaire because of Reagan.
Obama is attempting to wipe me out.”
Obama is just continuing many of the same policies as Reagan and the other more recent presidents. Military imperialism, endless wars, US troops in over a hundred countries, the federal reserve, trillions of dollars in social spending a year, the war on drugs, the war on terror and “homeland security,” massive debt that keeps growing, huge government giveaways to giant corporations…a debt-driven welfare/warfare state headed over a cliff.
But hey, you and I got to have a really good time while the engine pushing our vehicle over that cliff kicked into high gear in the Reagan years.
“I know who the good guy is.”
There are no good guys among recent US presidents, and certainly not Reagan.
” Anyone who calls themselves a Libertarian that spends their time attacking Reagan is self-destructive.”
Au contraire.
“Presidents need to reward the risk takers and job creators. Then jobs will automatically come.”
Most recently, presidents and congress have been rewarding those “too big to fail” (Reagan set the stage for that as well with the S&L bailouts as I am sure you remember) and the jobs have been disappearing.
“Yes they ALL spend too much…but if a politician is going to let someone keep more of their own money…that they earned…thats not a “special intetrest.” Thats not the same as Obama stealing my hard-earned money to give it his voters.”
Are you defining the savings and loan crooks, the lenders of government debt and the military contractors as those who “earned” their money? I’m more inclined to see them as crooks in partnership with the government.
As for Obama stealing money to give to his voters, what has he given them? As far as I can tell he has given them joblessness, homelessness, debt and hopelessness as far as the eye can see.
Many of them still don’t realize it, but many of them do. A pollster did a survey of Occupy Wall Street protesters. 60% voted for Obama in 2008; 75% oppose him now. Just under half are Democrats, Socialists and Greens. 39% are independents or anti-voting, 2% are Republicans and 12% are “something else.” 52% say that government can rarely be trusted and 42% say it can never be trusted.
Reading your article one might think that under Obama the rich have been forced out of their homes and the poor have moved in and thrown parties. In reality however, it is millions of poor people that have lost their jobs, homes and what savings they may have had, and in many cases their families and children as a result.
They did not move into rich people’s houses. They moved in with relatives in overcrowded and tense situations, or into temporary housing and shelters, or into jails and military barracks, or into their cars or on the streets. Some that houses now have apartments; some that had apartments now have less than that.
Will they still vote for Obama again? Some of them will, but only because they are scared of the Republicans. Others will believe that he will really be different this time, much like a woman going back to an abusive husband or a whore returning to her pimp. Some will vote Republican or third party this time and many will not vote at all.
It is the wealthy and well-connected – those “too big to fail” – that have made out as bandits under Obama. They are the ones that have funded his campaigns and they are getting bang for their buck. And no, we are not talking mom and pop small businesses here.
“Reagan let those who earned it, keep it. Forget everything else. That alone makes him the most Libertarian President in modern history.”
For a more balanced libertarian look at Reagan vis a vis other presidents see Ivan Eland’s “Recarving Mount Rushmore.” He ranks Reagan as one of the worst presidents and I am inclined to agree.
“Obama is the least Libertarian- he wants to take our money, redistribute it, AND he’s expanded the drug war, civil rights violations, and wars around the world.”
Mostly agreed, except that most of the actual wealth redistribution under Obama, as under Bush, has been from the poor, middle class and small business class to the super-rich. Everything else is window dressing to get votes from suckers.
Do you really, honestly believe that Romney, Perry or Cain would do anything substantially different than Bushama?
“Sorry boys but your hatred for Reagan is misplaced. Reagan did something right by LP standards.”
And much that was wrong.
“Obama has done nothing right by LP standards.”
You are correct about that. I just don’t see that he has done much of anything different than Shrub, though.
Interesting stuff here.
Marbles are free?
Obama worked as a lawyer? ( and a powerful one at that, apparently)- I thought that he’s never had a job? ( I know there’s a lawyer joke in there somewhere, and maybe you could say he was a lobbyist or whatever and didn’t have a real job, but how many of the men that Millionaire Republicans love really have “real jobs”, either?)
At least we now know why Wayne and his buddies never saw Obama on campus- He was already into the second decade of his career as a powerful attorney and political activist. Maybe he’s really 70 years old now, too. Is that part of Corsi’s latest- that Obama was born in Kenya 70 years ago? Maybe that baby in Hawaii died and Barry stole his identity?
“Marble envy?”
How can a person who has clearly lost his own marbles say that someone else has lost theirs and is jealous?
Is that because Root is an expert on losing his marbles?
Thanks to Tom Blanton for pointing out the problems created by the Reagan deficits. I don’t know why that concept is so hard for some people to understand. But it points out that when the government is running a deficit, tax cuts alone can not bring about prosperity. The deficits insure that taxes can be deferred, but not avoided. Either the debt is paid with tax money at a later date, or it is paid with the “inflation tax” as the Fed monetizes the debt. In fact, tax cuts without spending cuts probably create a worse clusterf*** than you would have if you just kept the status quo. So, regardless of whether Reagan or the Democrats were responsible, the 80’s deficits resulted in a short-term benefit, but also a long-term cost. There ain’t no free lunch, even when you charge it to your credit card.
At least, now we know where Wayne gets his economic ideas from. Maybe that explains why he didn’t mention Fed policy in the current recession or the 80’s recession and eventual expansion. But of course, Fed policy was instrumental in both, and because of the Fed’s “independence,” neither Reagan, Obama, nor Congress had any control over Fed policy, other than nominating the Federal Reserve Board chairman.
Did the Investor’s Business Daily predict in 2007 that the housing bubble would burst, and spread to the entire economy? I don’t know, but Peter Schiff certainly did, and of course he based that prediction on Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which blames the Fed’s artificial credit expansion. According to this view, as bad as the CRA and mortgage derivative hocus-pocus were, they served as the catalyst – not the underlying cause – of the recession. Much like the 1970’s stagflation, increased oil prices also aggravated (but did not cause) the recession. So the government’s foreign intervention and saber-rattling in the Middle East isn’t helping things.
As much as I dislike the Fed, you have to give Paul Volker credit for changing Fed policy in the 1980’s to protect the value of the dollar, instead of “stimulating” the economy. By contracting the money supply, the Fed provided the catalyst for the early 80’s recession. But it also provided regime certainty and allowed the economy to eliminate malinvestment and readjust to consumer preferences, so the 80’s recession was short-lived. In contrast, Fed policy today is aimed at stimulating the economy with low interest rates. As a result, we still have widespread unemployment and stagnant growth rates, 4 years after the mortgage meltdown began.
Obama shares blame for making a bad situation worse, but not all of it. And no, Reagan did not deserve all the credit (if any) for the economic expansion of the 1980’s. Again, there really is no such thing as a tax cut when the federal government is running deficits, there is only deferred taxation and the inflation tax.
Also, it’s short-sighted to discuss Reagan’s effect on the economy without considering the ideological changes he brought about. With the bombing of Libya, stationing Marines in Beirut (then wisely “cutting and running” after 200 of them were killed by a truck bomb), and the invasion of Grenada, Reagan set the stage for curing us of the “Vietnam syndrome” – code for changing American opinion to favor an interventionist foreign policy. Never mind that American foreign intervention was begun by Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and expanded by FDR, Reagan clearly put America back on the global warpath. The costs of this policy in both lives and wealth has been tremendous, far outweighing the small (and temporary) peace dividend.
The harmful effects of Reagan’s expansion of the War on Drugs could probably fill a book, too. Unless you believe in the broken window fallacy, this resulted in billions of dollars that would have been better burned than what they were actually used for. How does putting people in jail for consensual conduct, and thereby preventing them from doing productive work, improve the economy? Or diverting law enforcement resources away from preventing real crime?
God save us from faux libertarians like Ronald Reagan. I’m proud to have voted for Ed Clark and David Bergland instead.
Wayne instead of bashing Obama why not take another approach and call for the arrests and trials of some of the people who allegedly committed these crimes?
Wayne @ 20,
“There’s no need to debate. Whatever happens under a President is his responsibility.”
I’ve never believed that — and I’ve argued forcefully against the notion, including when Republicans were in office.
I will say that politicians in general are responsible for magnifying the effects of the “bust” end of “boom and bust” cycles, to the extent that almost any government intervention in the economy will either encourage malinvestment on the front end, or try to save people from the consequences of malinvestment on the back end.
But that’s something that presidents and congresses tend to do together — coming up with dueling proposals, then compromising such that the worst ideas of each side get adopted.
Reagan, I think, managed to get a little more of the good stuff (tax cuts) in there than most presidents do, along with a lot of bad stuff that he either wanted (corporate “defense” welfare) or grudgingly acquiesced in (general growth of government spending).
Thing is, as usual, I made a very narrow point (Obama was in high school when CRA was passed and never had anything like a major role in its effects), and you went wandering off into how awful he must be in spite of you being unwilling to bother getting your facts right.
Tom You actually think that all that is happening is Reagan’s fault? You’re clearly delusional.
No, and I did not say that. That is only what you hear, Wayne, because you are delusional.
You overlooked the fact that I did mention that government has been intervening in the real estate industry for over 50 years. That was a few years before Reagan, as well as Obama.
I wish the Democratic Congress under Reagan had not spent so recklessly.
I wish Reagan knew that he could veto bills he didn’t like.
All of that led to today. It’s all about spending.
According to your statements about the greatness of Reagan, it’s all about tax cuts. I’m saying there were no tax cuts, just tax deferrals.
And you spend your time criticizing conservatives.
No, i spend a small amount of my time criticizing you when you pretend that Obama and Acorn caused the economy to crash when anyone who is not delusional is aware that what is happening now has been coming for a long time.
It is you, Wayne, that spends nearly ALL your time criticizing Obama while pretending that Bush and prior administrations were not much better and certainly paved the way for Obama.
What I am doing is criticizing you for defending Republicans and pointing out why your fantasies about your hero, Reagan are not reality based.
I criticize liberals all the time. It’s just that, unlike you, I view Republicans and Democrats as very similar in nature, while you like to pretend there is a huge difference.
Like I said before, there are numerous reality-based reasons to criticize Obama. It’s just that causing the real estate meltdown really isn’t so much his fault. For example, extra-judicial assassinations of American citizens that are suspected of being a threat to America puts Obama in the same class as any tinpot dictator.
On the other hand, I defy you to identify anything regarding the economy that Obama is doing that hasn’t been done by past regimes. Since I have been alive modern president has increased spending and increased the national debt. What’s different about Obama? The size, scope and cost of government continues to expand. It will most likely continue to do so when Obama leaves.
Listening to your bloviations, one would think everything was wonderful until the day Obama was sworn in, and after that everything went straight to hell.
I’ve said on a thousand occasions I stand for massive cuts in spending and entitlements.
Are you still making that claim?
You stand for moderate cuts in spending. 10% in the first year of your imaginary presidency. Ron Paul is calling for a 25% cut in the first year of his imaginary presidency.
If the budget were cut by 50%, we would be at the same level of spending, adjusted for inflation, that existed in 1988 when Reagan left office. If you, like I, thought government was too big in 1980, even a 50% cut in spending isn’t enough.
A 10% cut may be massive in your mind, but in reality it is fairly moderate and certainly less than Republican Ron Paul.
Time try to divert attention from the truth.
I’m not sure what that even means, but I’m not saying anything that is untrue and it isn’t me that is trying to divert attention away from the truth.
End of story.
I wish that were true, but I’m sure you’ll come up with more histrionic tales about evil strawmen, imaginary conspiracies and super-hero fantasies.
16 tb: I worry that you may suffer from the same inability to correctly perceive reality that he suffered from.
me: Thanks muchly for your concern. Perceiving reality “correctly” is a universal challenge, as human processing bandwidth is pretty limited.
Now, it is possible that you are the next step in evolution, and that you have broken on through to the other side, giving you the gift of comprehensive perception of reality. You may well represent a kind of Second Coming! 😉
Tom You actually think that all that is happening is Reagan’s fault? You’re clearly delusional.
I wish the Democratic Congress under Reagan had not spent so recklessly.
I wish the Democratic Congress after Reagan had not spent the “Reagan peace dividend” so recklessly.
I wish the Republican Congress under Bush had not spent so recklessly.
It was the reason I left the GOP. Not sure how you can fault me about that.
I wish Obama and the Democratic Congress under Obama had not spent the most recklessly in history.
All of that led to today. It’s all about spending.
Exactly what the Tea Party is protesting about.
But liberals, progressives and assorted socialists…not to mention Occupy Wall Street…all want far MORE spending.
And you spend your time criticizing conservatives.
Time try to divert attention from the truth.
I’ve said on a thousand public occassions that Reagan’s mistake was not cutting spending dollar for dollar with tax cuts.
I’ve said on a thousand occasions I stand for massive cuts in spending and entitlements.
End of story.
Wayne
20 wr: There’s no need to debate. Whatever happens under a President is his responsibility.
me: Actually, I don’t agree with this, although that is a widely held perception. I find that perception simplistic. In many ways the Clinton years were relatively OK ones from a L perspective. Yes, anti-liberty initiatives were started, but for the most part, I’d say Clinton and Congress in those years were relatively restrained.
The economy probably benefited from a bit of a peace dividend. Clinton didn’t put in motion the peace dividend, however.
So, it may not be satisfying to not have a demon, but, for ex., the Obama years were to some extent set up by the Bush years. Obama clearly inherited some poor policies and programs. Not surprisingly, Obama’s policy inflections have bent to the curve in an even more anti-liberty, anti-peace direction.
Stating preferences among Rs and Ds don’t get us much, nor does assigning relative blame. For a L viewpoint to start to be taken seriously, we’d need to have at least a working minority in Congress.
Until there are Ls at the table, the blame game does very little except me-tooing with either the Rs or Ds against the other. I don’t see what that accomplishes.
What Wayne Root can’t quite wrap his little mind around around is the fact that there is no such thing as a tax cut without a spending cut.
Like all socialists and government worshipers, he seems to believe that a president or the government can create wealth out of nothing.
If Wayne is trying to make the case that Reagan is more libertarian than Obama, OK. That is like saying Charles Manson was a great guy compared to John Wayne Gacy. Compared to Castro, Obama is a libertarian. Hell, compared to Bush, even Clinton seems almost libertarian.
The fact remains that huge deficits are deferred taxes and they distort the economy because the borrowed money could have gone to more productive uses. Merely printing the money results in inflation – a hidden tax. Raising FICA payments is a tax hike. Elimination of non-mortgage interest deductions is an effective tax hike. Reagan did not cut taxes so much as he postponed the day of reckoning.
Republicans like to borrow and spend. Democrats love to tax and spend. Nothing new about that.
I was around in 1980. The size, scope and power of government was too much for me then. It was worse when Reagan left office. I did not vote for Reagan in 1980, I voted Libertarian and continued to do so until the LP went all conservative with the Barr/Root ticket.
All I can say is the only thing worse than a lying liberal is a lying conservative. That goes for Reagan and all the idiots that think they got a tax cut under him or Bush when all they got was inflation, a distorted economy, massive debt (of which not one dime has been paid off), and a day of reckoning that is quickly closing in on all of us. What is it about deferred taxation that these clowns don’t get?
I hope Root has explained to his kids how they shouldn’t mind paying his hero’s debts because of all the big bucks Reagan saved him while he was a punk kid going to college.
I’ll bet Wayne pocketed an extra $100 bucks or so during Reagan’s time in office, after the FICA hike. Hope it was worth it, sucker.
Joan Lowy, Associated Press:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was apparently working from Coburn’s list two weeks ago when he offered an amendment to narrow the types of projects eligible for enhancement funds.
“Pennsylvania ranks first out of all states for deficient bridges. Yet it seems to be more important to furbish large roadside coffee pots,” McCain said.
But no transportation aid was spent on the coffee pot’s $100,000 restoration, said Olga Herbert, executive director of the Lincoln Highway Heritage Corridor.
The money was raised entirely from preservation and civic organizations and local supporters.
“We did not use any of this $300,000 award for anything to do with the coffee pot,” she said.
“It’s interesting that nobody from Senator Coburn’s office called me about this.”
@24
First I find it so funny that leftists accuse Reagan of spending too much.
Obama has increased the debt far more than Reagan.
But you continue to miss…or purposely ignore the difference.
Carter and Obama did the same thing…EXACT same thing…tax the rich…spend the money on social programs, welfare, food stamps. Result- economic disaster.
Reagan let the successful people in this country keep more of their own money. Result- greatest economic expansion in history.
Again, perhaps I’m talking to people who weren’t there. I was. I made a fortune in those wonderful Reagan “GO-GO Years.”
We got a massive income tax and a small FICA increase and you are comparing the two like they cancel each other out.
This shows that you’ve never owned a business. Small business is what matters. Small business owners are the heroes of our economy. They create most of the jobs.
Reagan helped them and me. The extra money I saved allowed me to start businesses and invest in homes and stocks. This is how to build an economy.
So if I made an extra 10% of $250,000 per year under Reagan…thats $25,000 extra I was allowed to keep.
And I invested it and doubled it over ten years. So Reagan over a decade made me an extra $500,000. Since that was my money in the first place…that is right thing to do.
Meanwhile he raised FICA by a point or two…that cost me perhaps $1000 a year.
That sounds like a great deal to me.
I became a self made millionaire because of Reagan.
Obama is attempting to wipe me out.
I know who the good guy is. Anyone who calls themselves a Libertarian that spends their time attacking Reagan is self-destructive.
Sorry that argument is a non starter.
Presidents need to reward the risk takers and job creators. Then jobs will automatically come.
Yes they ALL spend too much…but if a politician is going to let someone keep more of their own money…that they earned…thats not a “special intetrest.” Thats not the same as Obama stealing my hard-earned money to give it his voters.
That is against everything a Libertarian believes in.
Reagan let those who earned it, keep it. Forget everything else. That alone makes him the most Libertarian President in modern history.
Obama is the least Libertarian- he wants to take our money, redistribute it, AND he’s expanded the drug war, civil rights violations, and wars around the world.
Sorry boys but your hatred for Reagan is misplaced. Reagan did something right by LP standards.
Obama has done nothing right by LP standards.
What universe does Wayne Root inhabit?
Are millions of rich people being pushed out of their homes by mobs of poor people?
In the real world it is the other way around.
Maybe instead of 45 million people on food stamps, we could have 45 million people begging in the streets, fighting each other over scraps of food from the trash, stealing food, cannibalizing each other or dying from starvation?
In the real world, as opposed to Root’s fantasies, millions of people have lost their jobs and homes. Not rich people, but people who were poor to middle class. Wages and benefits are not going up, but apartment prices are since more former home owners now have to rent.
Obamacare has done nothing for poor people. There are still many millions of uninsured, and many millions more who are insured but can’t afford their deductibles. In fact the deductibles have been rising at a record rate. Obamacare is a mandate for people to buy insurance from big corporations whether they can afford it or not. Naturally the big insurance corporations will profit as never before, but what about everyone else?
In Wayne’s World “Obama proposes forcing banks who are broke because government encouraged them to give loans to lower income people who weren’t qualified…to refinance those underwater mortgages without regard for whether this is economic suicide for the banks. ”
In the real world banks are not on the brink of suicide, but many poor people have been out of work for so long that suicide is becoming more and more attractive.
And far from being broke, banks got bailed out and have raked in record profits while at the same time millions of people lost homes and jobs.
It might be nice for 99% if we could live in Wayne’s World. Too bad that is not an option.
Were Tip O’Neill and the Democrats in congress mostly responsible for the rise in government spending and debt during the Reagan years?
Aside from having a veto pen, the president also submits an annual budget to congress. Congress does not have to enact the plan, and always makes some changes in spending levels and priorities. However, we have some idea of what the budget would be if it was up to the president without any need to pass things through congress first.
Under 8 years of Reagan, the president’t submitted budget was higher than the one actually passed by congress more than once. During the remaining years, it was only slightly lower.
Reagan’s talk about cutting spending and taxes was mostly a shell game. Marginal income tax rates were lowered, but FICA taxes were increased and debt paid for the rest of the spending orgy. That’s debt that is still being paid with taxes for interest payments today and as far into the future as we can see.
It’s true that O’Neill and his Democrats wanted relatively more spending on social programs, but Reagan was also an FDR fan and wanted to continue those programs as well. Additionally, he wanted more spending on the military, S & L bailouts, the war on drugs and the Meese Commission on Pornography (OK, that last one is a frivolous detail, sorry) than the Democrats.
So, they compromised: the Democrats got the social spending they wanted, Reagan got the military spending he wanted, the drug war spending he wanted, the Savings and Loan bailouts he wanted. Reagan signed it all into law and most of the bill was deferred to future administrations and future generations.
Was the military spending needed to end the Soviet Union? No, the Soviet economic system was a basket case that was headed for collapse soon enough anyway.
Reagan’s military spending spree may have speeded that up a little bit, or it may have slowed down the collapse of the USSR as the commissars used fear of foreign invasion to keep themselves in power just a little bit longer. Either way, the accumulating debt now threatens the US economy, in no small part due to the precedent set by Reagan as well as the interest on his actual spending.
Let me see if I understand: a Republican President gets credit for anything good that happens during his term, while the Democrats in Congress get blamed for anything bad during his term (and vice-versa Democratic President blamed while praising Republicans in Congress)?
Are we to take away from Wayne’s diatribe that Chicago was the epicenter of the mortgage market implosion?
That’s totally absurd hogwash.
It is clear from all of Wayne’s “plans” that he believes, just as Obama, that government should pick winners and losers.
His so-called “reverse flat tax” (which isn’t a flat tax) would reward entrepreneurs earning over $250,000 while penalizing competing entrepreneurs earning less than $250,000, thus giving existing business owners an advantage over new start-ups by providing them with additional capital with which to expand not available to entrepreneurs just starting out.
Wayne also conflates capitalist investors with entrepreneurs. While venture capitalists may fund some start-ups, it is entrepreneurs that actually start small businesses and hire people – often starting on a shoe-string budget funded by their own savings, credit cards, and/or family loans. It is these small businesses that Wayne claims to support that actually drive the economy, especially on a community level.
The meme that banks are “forced” to lower underwriting standards for mortgage loans is undermined by the fact that the government underwriting standards apply to government insured loans or conforming FNMA loans with private mortgage insurance.
These underwriting standards do not allow banks to fudge credit reports and inflate appraisals. A moral hazard is created when government essentially guarantees these loans, socializing losses for the banks – even when mortgage originators engage in fraud.
To blame Obama for the real estate boom and bust is just so far off base as to be laughable as it started before he was on the scene. To blame the CRA is also laughable as it was only a marginal factor.
To ignore Bush’s American Dream Downpayment Initiative, designed to promote minority home ownership and provide mortgages to home buyers with NO downpayment, is disingenuous at best. But when all Wayne can do is regurgitate the right-wing talking points he absorbs like a sponge, it is no wonder that the major factors that caused this mess are ignored – his “sources” are all Republican shills and they also ignore over 50 years of government intervention into the housing and mortgage industry. They also ignore that it has been lenders, builders, Realtors, and other benefactors that lobbied for most of these government programs, including mortgage interest deductions.
I favor totally free markets and no income tax. Wayne favors social engineering through the tax code and government picking winners and losers.
I am against government favoring all special interests. Wayne is only against government favoring the special interests that he disagrees with.
This is evidenced by his continual diatribes against Obama’s role in the economy and against the all-powerful Acorn group.
His foolish analysis of the mortgage meltdown is as absurd as the Democrat analysis that evil predator lenders fooled people into taking out loans they couldn’t afford to pay.
So, like Wayne’s Republican analysis and the Democrat version, the Fed’s artificial interest rates and easy money policies get a pass. The Wall Street mortgage bundlers get a pass. The fraud of the government ordained ratings agencies get a pass. The lenders that fudged credit reports and appraisals get a pass. The yuppies that were re-financing every dime of equity they had as prices ballooned get a pass (as well as a mortgage interest deduction) and many who are underwater now as a result of their borrowing have stopped paying their mortgage and the banks aren’t foreclosing because they don’t won’t to write off the huge losses (because of reserve requirements).
It’s all the fault of Obama and Acorn? Bullshit.
Wayne is correct here, both in fact, in practice and in principle.
The only thing Wayne is correct on is his ability to restate Republican talking points designed to demonize Obama so that a Republican can seize the reigns of power and continue the same basic policies that Obama and Bush have adhered to.
How’s Obama doing with the whole “wealth redistribution” thing?
Select statistics from an article by Susan Williams, M.D:
Information released in August showed immigrants hardest hit by the slump in construction. Employment of foreign-born men dropped by nearly a third from 2007 to 2010, compared with “only” 21.6 percent of men born here. Immigrants who do have work are in lower-end jobs. While others got a modest gain in wages, theirs fell.
……..
Not that being “legal,” even U.S.-born, is protection. Latinos and Latinas were slammed; over 600,000 jobs vanished for them. Blacks lost more jobs than they had gained in the prior decade.
In August, 8.0 percent of white men were unemployed, but 17.3 percent of Black men were. For Black youth it was an appalling 47.2 percent!
Many who have jobs are underemployed, with no benefits. People of color go longer before finding work and are less likely to get unemployment compensation. Nearly one-third of unemployed African Americans in New York City have been jobless for more than three years; over one-third more have been for over a year.
The employment gap is even wider for Native Americans. Only 44 percent held jobs in the northern plains states last year, despite the fact that rates for whites there are better than the national average. Alaskan Natives are in similar straits.
For all people of color, the racial job gap is widening. Ten years ago, as the country recovered from the last recession, 64.9 percent of adult white men were employed compared to 60.5 percent of Blacks. Now the number of whites with jobs is higher at 68.8 percent, but Black men have fallen to only 57 percent.
…….
Early on, commentators underscored the relatively heavier toll on men of color, with the creation of new jobs growing more slowly than the need. But in the past two years, the total jobs for Black women have actually fallen.
…………
Black and Latina women were also targeted for sub-prime mortgages, the credit rip-off that triggered the economic crash. As people lost their jobs, Black families (slightly more than half with a single mom), have been far more likely to lose homes.
Most elders have gotten poorer. More than three-quarters of older Latinos, and 69 percent of African Americans, are unable to pay for basic needs — rent, food, medicine, and transportation — compared with a lower, but still outrageous, 44 percent of whites.
………
The widening racial divide is revealed most starkly by figures for household worth: the value of belongings (home, car, savings, stocks) minus debts. Here the combined impacts of perpetually lower employment, lower wages, and more costly credit don’t just add, they multiply.
Census Bureau data comparing 2005 with 2009 showed all groups hurt by the crisis. However, white households started out ahead, with median assets of $134,992 falling to $113,149. This 16 percent drop is bad enough. But compare it to African American families, who were at only $12,124 and fell to $5,677 (53 percent), or Latinos, who dropped from $18,539 to $6,235 (a whopping 66 percent).
Asian Americans, the so-called “model” minority, had the highest pre-crisis holdings: $168,103. No more. They lost a quarter million jobs, and household worth fell by 54 percent, to $78,066.
Headlines across the country blasted news of this “lost wealth,” the largest drop since the Census Bureau began collecting this information. Let’s get real. The assets of working people of all races weren’t “lost” — they were stolen.
………
During these years, the ultra-rich — 74 people whose average income started at $91.2 million — jumped more than five times to [..] $518.8 million. In fact, the minuscule fraction of the wealthiest within each racial group got richer, while millions sank.
Workers are poorer, but big corporations are making record profits and paying their CEOs to cut wages, lay off workers and dodge taxes.
…………
True to their heritage, Wall Street bosses turned their crisis into the biggest transfer of riches from working people to the ruling class the world has ever seen.
………
Rob Banks sez: maybe that’s why there are so many Wall Streeters in Obama’s administration and so many Wall Street contributions to his campaigns?
@19
Thomas,
I don’t need to accuse Obama of killing JFK…or anything else he didn’t do.
All anyone needs to do is accuse him of what he did do as President- ruin the U.S. economy.
There’s no need to debate. Whatever happens under a President is his responsibility. Just as all of you wrongly accuse Reagan of massive debt increaes…when in reality it was Top O’Neill who was most responsible.
It doesn’t matter. Reagan was the boss. The buck stops here.
That’s why Reagan also gets credit for greatest economic turnaround in history…and the greatest expansion of economy ever.
Obama is the man who presided over worst economy- perhaps worst ever…and the first-ever downgrade of U.S. AAA rating.
All anyone running against him should ask is one question…24 hours a day…that’s called branding…
“Are you better off today than 4 years ago?”
Since no one I know that owns a business is better off…since no one I know that works on commission is better off…since no one I know has a home worth more than when Obama took over…
End of story.
When you are failing…you need change.
Anything is better than the same captain and same tragic course.
Forget his days at Columbia…forget his days at ACORN…forget everything before he took office.
He is presiding over a tragedy that will be written about in the history books 1000 years from now.
@15,
“As a former White House staff economist writes in the American Thinker, Obama represented ACORN in a 1994 suit against redlining.”
Anyone can write that. If one actually looks at the complaint in the lawsuit, however, what one will find is that the law firm Obama worked for was hired, and that Obama’s name is not among the three lawyers who worked for that firm and signed and submitted the complaint.
That’s not to say that he definitely didn’t work on that case; but he wasn’t hired to. A firm he worked for was.
Also, the “training” he gave ACORN activists was for a voter registration push after “motor voter” was passed, not pursuant to bank “redlining” protests.
None of which absolves Obama of being a bad politician, of course. But at this rate, you’re eventually going to accuse him of assassinating JFK when he was three.
I think the largest part of the Federal Legislatures forcing banks to underwrite worse and worse loans was certainly under the great pressure and influence of Misters Obama and Frank.
Certainly the system before it was greatly flawed and less than Libertarian. However, the volume of loans and money, divided by the lowering of underwriting standards (Forced by Frank, Obama, etc.) made it a huge tsunami’s worth of difference than before.
Wayne is correct here; in fact, in practice and in principle.
Thank you Wayne for verifying your Acorn conspiracy theory did in fact originate from an editorial.
Thanks for providing a link that doesn’t work.
It would seem that this Acorn conspiracy consists of an organized group of people using existing law and lobbying politicians within the system to use the government to get what they want. This would seem to be similar to the same type of “Saul Alinsky tactics” used by the Chamber of Commerce, AIPAC, and other special interest groups to get what they want from the government.
That’s the trouble with government.
It is quite unfortunate that Acorn, the Chamber of Commerce, and other groups engage in these secret nefarious conspiracies for their narrow self-interests and other sinister purposes. Quite often one finds evil political operatives working behind the scenes to facilitate the Machiavellian workings of these secretive organizations as they plot agendas that are destructive to society.
I’m wondering, were the Realtors and the mortgage lenders in cahoots with Acorn and Obama? What role did Goldman Sachs and the Bank of America play? Were there real estate developers, bankers and appliance outlets working through the Chamber of Commerce to secretly lobby for government insured mortgages?
In September 1992, the Chicago Tribune described the group’s agenda as “affirmative action lending.”
Oh my God! If a 1992 editorial in the Chicago Tribune stated that, then it must be true! How dare those evil bastards use the 1977 CRA for the purposes that law was intended!
Oh well, that’s the problem with laws designed to promote special interests. Can’t live with them, can’t live without them.
If only Reagan and the Republicans had known about this secret CRA law designed to undermine capitalism and destroy America. But, alas, he was too busy fighting communism in the world by throwing pork at the defense industry to notice the commies in our own backyard.
That’s the problem with making politicians into heroes.
Capozzi, I didn’t intend to suggest that you praise or worship Reagan. I worry that you may suffer from the same inability to correctly perceive reality that he suffered from.
Knowing that you lack the resources to obtain professional help and in-patient rehabilitation, I try to do my best to keep you from careening off into the realm of received wisdom set forth by deranged political hacks.
Oh, your paranoia over the imaginary threats that you refer to as they – it is destructive in that they only exist in your mind. It probably springs from self-hatred. You imagine that others must want to destroy you because you subconsciously want to destroy yourself.
I urge you to learn to love yourself and try to imagine a neighborhood where your neighbors aren’t seeking to kill you. Don’t act out on your impulses to stage preventive attacks on your neighbors.
You may wish to engage in non-threatening dialogue with your neighbors. Don’t accuse them of saying or doing things that they haven’t said or done and let them know that you have no desire to control their lives. You may find they are nice people that aren’t plotting to launch a nuclear strike against you.
Sorry but the leftist leaners on this site just don’t want to believe the facts…this isn’t from a political site…it’s from my favorite publication Investors Business Daily- which I’ve found over the years is right on the money…and gets every economic issue right:
Update VI: Investors business daily reports more on Obama’s work with ACORN
Obama, who once represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois, was hired by the group to train its community organizers and staff in the methods and tactics of the late Saul Alinsky. ACORN would stage in-your-face protests in bank lobbies, drive-through lanes and even at bank managers’ homes to get them to issue risky loans in the inner city or face charges of racism.
In the early 1990s, reports Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Policy Center, Obama was personally recruited by Chicago’s ACORN to run training sessions in “direct action.” That’s the euphemism for the techniques used under the cover of the federal Community Reinvestment Act to intimidate financial institutions into giving what have been called “Ninja” loans — no income, no job, no assets — to people who couldn’t afford them.
CRA was designed to increase minority homeownership. Whenever a bank wanted to grow or expand, ACORN would file complaints that it was not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of minorities in providing home loans. Agitators would then be unleashed.
Chicago’s ACORN used Alinsky’s tactics against institutions such as Bell Federal Savings and Loan and Avondale Federal Savings. In September 1992, the Chicago Tribune described the group’s agenda as “affirmative action lending.”
Obama also helped ACORN get funding. When he served on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the Woods Fund frequently gave ACORN grants to fund its activist agenda.
In 1995, Kurtz reports, Obama chaired the committee that increased funding of ACORN and other community organizers. The committee report boasted that the fund’s “non-ideological” image “enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and governmental ‘establishments’ without undue risk of being accused of partisanship.”
The CRA empowered regulators to punish banks that failed to “meet the credit needs” of “low-income, minority and distressed neighborhoods.” It gave groups such as ACORN a license and a means to intimidate banks, claiming they were “redlining” poor and minority neighborhoods. ACORN employed its tactics in 1991 by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA.
As a former White House staff economist writes in the American Thinker, Obama represented ACORN in a 1994 suit against redlining. ACORN was also a driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton administration that greatly expanded the CRA and helped spawn the current financial crisis.
Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. Last November, he told the group, “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career.” Indeed he has.
Obama was and is fully aware of what ACORN was doing with the money and expertise he provided. The voters should be aware on Nov. 4 of the roles of both in creating the current crisis.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307667123149723
12 tb: Perhaps you have the Reagan disease, Capozzi.
me: I’d say No, I don’t. I’m far less inclined to praise Reagan than Root is. I think he recognized that smaller is better when it comes to government, but I also think he could have negotiated harder, but his Cold Warrior views conflicted with his smaller government perspective.
Good luck with the pistol-only approach. You may find that “they” use more advanced means to storm Blantonia.
you as sole inhabitant and dictator of Blantonia notice that the crime rate has increased outside the four walls of your nation of one. You might increase spending and put razor wire atop the Keep. Or you might install motion sensors.
Nope, I’m a cheap date. I’d grab my pistol off the table, chamber a round, and keep that rascal by my side.
YOU, would install motion detectors and TV cameras while cringing in fear that your precious “limited government” would be unable to protect you from that neighbor you think is building a nuclear weapon to kill you with.
Interestingly, that seems to suggest that an anarchist might in this sense favor an INCREASE in government spending far faster than population growth.
Correct?
Incorrect, Capozzi.
Anarchists prefer spending cuts of 100%.
The statement I made clearly suggests something entirely different from what your muddled and situational thinking perceives, Capozzi.
Perhaps you have the Reagan disease, Capozzi. He often had bizarre misconceptions about what was going on. For example, he thought that raising FICA taxes would save socialist security. He apparently believed some kind of nonsense that the money would be put into a magic lockbox instead of dumped into the general fund and spent.
He also believed that tons of pork had to be delivered to the defense industry or the USSR, which he perceived to be an economic and military powerhouse, would take over the world and bring about Armageddon.
Perhaps astrology led him to believe that the socialist system of the USSR was superior to the American corporatist/socialist/fascist mixed economy. Maybe he believed the misinformation aimed at the public by his CIA regarding the economic and military strength of the USSR.
My advice to you Capozzi is that when someone calls bullshit on conservative spin, don’t assume it is because they are a liberal.
However, when someone regurgitates conservative spin 24/7, it is safe to assume they are a conservative, as opposed to being a liberal or a libertarian.
RC @10,
That is not government spending.
8 tb: This new “plan” sounds like a “true conservative” plan as it locks in the current level of government permanently, adjusted only by population growth and inflation.
me: In a nonarchist territory, I would think that there may be times when government/defense spending increases at a much faster pace. Say, for ex., you as sole inhabitant and dictator of Blantonia notice that the crime rate has increased outside the four walls of your nation of one. You might increase spending and put razor wire atop the Keep. Or you might install motion sensors.
Interestingly, that seems to suggest that an anarchist might in this sense favor an INCREASE in government spending far faster than population growth.
Correct?
Mr. Root exaggerates so much in this commentary that it invalidates any other comments he makes. Perhaps he’ll think better of this in the morning, and pull it before too many other people read it.
It will never happen to me…because I’ll never support a tax increase…and I’ll always vote against increased spending beyond population growth plus rate of inflation.
This is after you’re elected President?
Well, is this a new “plan” – I thought you were going to cut spending when you are the President?
This new “plan” sounds like a “true conservative” plan as it locks in the current level of government permanently, adjusted only by population growth and inflation.
Wayne,
“Check your facts.”
I did. Apparently you didn’t — and that’s a big mistake when you’re getting your “facts” from Jerome Corsi.
Barack Obama worked as a lawyer. He was part of a firm that represented the plaintiff in an ACORN-supported case in 1994 (not in “recent years”). He was such an important lawyer on that case that his name is not among the three listed on the complaint.
He then traded again in future years- he agreed to a few small tax increases in order to get the massive spending cuts he wanted.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I guess Reagan left his veto pen at home that day. I guess that was why I lost my auto loan interest deduction while my FICA taxes were going up, too.
How much you want to bet that Obama and his cult members blame the lying Republicans in the House for thwarting his brilliant central planning, too?
Obama was at the center of housing collapse- along with fed govt in general.
That’s a real stretch. I suppose what started in Chicago reverberated over the entire planet. Must have been that communist domino effect.
Second, why are you distorting facts about what I believe in? I just released my Flat Tax proposal 2 weeks ago and it included both mortgage deduction and charity deduction.
Well, Wayne, “two weeks ago” (on July 13, 2011), you posted something under the title “What Would Reagan Do? — Part II” and you wrote:
Why not a Reverse Flat Tax with two simple rates that could be filled out on a postcard: A 15 percent flat tax rate for the first $250,000 of income, and 10 percent for any income above $250,000? Imagine the economic explosion this would inspire, as capitalist entrepreneurs line up to invest their money in new businesses, so they could take advantage of this Reverse Flat Tax. Contrast that reaction with Obama’s tax schemes, which merely frighten, discourage, and punish small business owners.
http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/blog/2011/07/13/what-would-reagan-do-part-ii/
I didn’t see anything about a mortgage interest deduction. Besides, a flat tax, by definition, is where income is taxed at one rate with no deductions. Add deductions into the mix and you have something else. Further adding a regressive rate for the highest earners and you don’t even have a flat tax.
No, of course I haven’t read the screwed up tax plans of your Republican buddies, Wayne. It’s all bullshit as far as I’m concerned. However, I read your “plan” – which does not mention mortgage interest deductions – and which is not a flat tax. It is a regressive income tax with only 2 rate steps.
What’s your next plan, Wayne? How about eliminating income tax. You could do that by merely renaming what currently exists – call it an earnings tax.
Perhaps you could tell us about your research into these matters. Was it op-eds on Newsmax or Free Republic? Glenn Beck’s website? Sean Hannity’s radio show?
I want to read about Obama’s secret Marxist plot to use Acorn and Saul Alinsky’s playbook to crash the housing market and make Cloward & Pivens proud.
As usual, government and leftist/progressive activists at the center of most of this country’s economic problems.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Those damn all-powerful leftist/progressive activists really had Bush and his Republican Congress over a barrel. They forced the Republicans to enact a prescription drug benefit plan, start 2 wars, create Dept. of Homeland Security, increase the budget, damn near double national debt, pass the PATRIOT Act, AND push the American Dream Downpayment Initiative. On top of all that, those activists forced Bush to push the TARP program.
Yes Wayne, you might be the most astute political observer since the advent of talk radio. You can fit more GOP talking points into one little article than Sean Hannity can fit in a 3 hour radio show. All backed up by careful research, of course.
Tom Blanton…
First my model is Hong Kong..they have booming economy with flat tax and zero cap gains tax. Guess what? That flat tax includes 2 things- mortgage deduction and charity deduction.
Second, why are you distorting facts about what I believe in? I just released my Flat Tax proposal 2 weeks ago and it included both mortgage deduction and charity deduction.
Third you make idiotic blanket statements about generic GOP plans that you’ve obviously not read either. Rick Perry’s flat tax plan includes both mortgage and charitable deduction.
Fourth…you make such incorrect blanket statements about Reagan. You obviously don’t live in real world. Reagan wasn’t able to waive a magic wand and perform miracles. He had Tip O’Neil and Democrats controlling the Congress by a wide margin. He had to horse-trade to get anything passed.
Reagan wanted massive cuts in spending. To get massive tax cuts that turned worst recession since 1929 into greatest economic boom in world history he had to give Tip O’Neill things he wanted. Democrats wanted earned income credit and spending increases – as usual.
Reagan A) Traded for what we desperately needed- tax cuts.
B) He then traded again in future years- he agreed to a few small tax increases in order to get the massive spending cuts he wanted. As usual Democrats lied and committed fraud. They agreed to future spending cuts…and never imposed them.
Reagan was far too nice. He was cheated.
The tax cuts that saved the U.S. economy were 100% due to Reagan.
The spending increases are blamed on…
A) Democrat Congress
and B) We did have a cold war at the time. Reagan increased defense spending to bankrupt the Soviet Union…end the chance of a nuclear war…and then with no Cold War enemy…we had a “peace dividend.”
We could have balanced the budget in later years because of Reagan’s brilliant strategy. But Congress spent it all.
Big mistake.
Which is why my advice to all conservatives is to NEVER vote for tax increases…EVER. Because it will be blamed on you and held against you.
And never horse-trade for future spending cuts, because they’ll never happen.
And you get blamed for both by people like Tom Blanton. Sad.
It will never happen to me…because I’ll never support a tax increase…and I’ll always vote against increased spending beyond population growth plus rate of inflation.
Lastly, someone above said that Community Re-Investment Act was before Obama. Duh. Really? You didn’t think I knew that?
You must be blind, deaf and dumb. The Act was supercharged by ACORN in recent years. And who was ACORN’s lawyer leading the charge? Barack Obama.
Check your facts.
I always check mine.
Obama was at the center of housing collapse- along with fed govt in general.
As usual, government and leftist/progressive activists at the center of most of this country’s economic problems.
Wayne pick up a copy of the book Reckless Endangerment by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner. It goes through much of the history. Great coverage.
First Obama tried to redistribute wealth before he was President, by leading the charge to force banks to make loans to lower income Americans who could not afford to own homes (through the Community Reinvestment Act). Affirmative action for homes didn’t work out so well. That idea imploded the housing market, and led to the destruction of the entire U.S. economy.
First, the CRA dates back to 1977. I believe Obama was a teenager then. Second, the CRA does not force banks to lend to people that can’t afford loans.
Through various FHA loan programs, the government gives lenders the opportunity to make no-risk low-interest loans to qualified borrows for a minimal down payment. The loans are FHA insured, insuring that in the event of foreclosure, the lender doesn’t lose a dime.
These FHA programs have been around for about 50 years. More recently, private mortgage insurance (PMI) has been available for mortgages with loan-to-value ratios exceeding 80%.
What imploded the housing market was securitization of sliced & diced mortgages based on inflated appraisals,fraudulent credit statements, and bogus ratings. Once investors realized the mortgage backed securities were crap, they stopped buying them. Then came the bailouts for the people who created the crap securities that nobody wanted. This had nothing to do with affirmative action.
Root’s hero could have worked to repeal the CRA and all the government intervention in the real estate market, but he didn’t.
Probably because lenders, Realtors, and home builders love all the government loan programs that enables them to profit from the marginal buyers who could not buy homes otherwise.
The CRA canard makes a great soundbite for right-wing talk radio shock jocks, but it is merely a drop in the bucket compared to the recession that preceded the mortgage defaults, the non-conforming jumbo loans made to mostly white upper-middle class buyers paying top dollar for pre-fab McMansions, and the over-building of office space and malls due to artificially low interest rates.
The problem for Republicans desperate to demonize Obama for the systemic problems with our economy is that these problems existed before Obama’s arrival in Washington. It’s no secret that the real estate market has been unraveling for 5 or 6 years now and the reasons for it go back many years.
I guess the Root can’t remember Bush’s “Ownership Society” and his “American Dream Downpayment Initiative”. I suppose he thinks that crap was based on Republican “free market” principles.
So he desperately plans and plots to eliminate or greatly reduce the mortgage tax deduction for wealthy homeowners- thereby ruining the values of their homes, forcing many of them into foreclosures or short sales, and destabilizing upscale neighborhoods across the USA.
What a crock of shit! Root and his Republican buddies are all talking about flat taxes which would also eliminate the backdoor subsidy mortgage deduction for wealthy homeowners paying historically low interest rates – for those who even have a mortgage.
The fact is that many wealthy people pay cash for their fancy houses in upscale neighborhoods. They often get credit line mortgages on their free and clear homes when they want to finance a purchase of something else (A Rolls or a yacht) so they can get the mortgage interest deduction.
No if Root’s hero had not eliminated non-mortgage interest deductions to offset his tax cuts for the wealthy, people could deduct interest on car loans and other non-mortgage loans.
Hands off my mortgage deduction! Don’t destroy the value of my over-priced mansion! Oh, but a Republican flat tax that eliminates my mortgage deduction would be great!
This reminds me of the tea party idiots. No socialized medicine! Don’t touch my medicare!
I guess it is OK for fat cat Republicans to get bailouts, tax breaks, artificially low interest rates, and questionable mortgages on over-priced real estate. That’s what I call affirmative action for the elite.
The government needs to get out of the real estate business and quit distorting the economy. Let the lenders, Realtors, home builders, mortgage security bundlers, credit raters, bond raters, and McMansion buyers operate in a free market.
There is so very much to criticize Obama about that is real – enough reality based outrages to give conservatives their required fix of daily outrage for years to come.
That being the case, why does Root insist on this absurd fantasy based rhetoric that only appeals to the most ignorant right-wing rubes in radio land?
It should be embarrassing to every libertarian with an IQ over 65.
This one is especially ridiculous:
My hero Ronald Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes to starve the government and empower the individual.
Reagan’s first budget was $678 Billion in 1981. The budget was over $1 Trillion for his last year.
When Reagan took office, the national debt was $907 Billion. When he left, the national debt was $2.6 Trillion.
Reagan starved the government alright. That would be like starving someone that weighed 90 pounds until they weighed 260 pounds.
Who got empowered by all that?
“First Obama tried to redistribute wealth before he was President, by leading the charge to force banks to make loans to lower income Americans who could not afford to own homes (through the Community Reinvestment Act).”
Wow, who knew? Obama led the charge for the CRA … as a sophomore in high school!
I agree that the phaseout of the wealth redistribution / corporate welfare program that is the mortgage interest deduction should grandfather current mortgages so as to minimize disruption. But it is at least as bad as CRA, and needs to go.
Ad hominem at its worst. Struggling to come up with more material Root?