Can't satisfy them even if you hang'm with a New Rope!

Started on July 15th, will add as I go on. But post on!!

This was clipped from the Wall Street Opinion Journal:

"Friday, July 15, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Let's see if we can get this straight: When tax revenues fall and budget deficits go up, it's bad news. But when tax revenues rise and deficits decline, it's still bad news.

At least that seems to be the way a sizable chunk of Washington is reacting to this week's report from the White House budget office that the federal deficit is down by nearly $100 billion this fiscal year, that the deficit as a share of GDP is down to 2.7% (very near its historical average), and that this is all happening because tax receipts are surging by more than 14%. Uncle Sam is having a better year so far than even Paris Hilton, but half of the Beltway is depressed.

John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, seems especially upset that this revenue surge isn't coming from wage income, but rather from investment income--that is, the so-called non-withholding income tax collections, which have skyrocketed by some 30% this year. "These are typically taxes paid on one-time capital gains, bonuses, stock-options income that may not recur," he laments.

Well, sure, Congressman, the 2003 reductions in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains seem to be resulting in much higher tax revenues on . . . dividends and capital gains. This is called the Laffer Curve effect, and we thank Mr. Spratt for validating it. If he wants those revenues to "recur," maybe he'll even vote to make those tax cuts permanent...."

History has shown this to always be the case. Reduce taxes, and our coffers expand. Why are the liberals so threatened by this proven theory? Because they want control. They want to control your pocket book, while still pretending to be your advocate and buddy buddy. In reality, they are only increasing their own power (Personal power is relinquished when we agree to pay extra taxes, increased regulations etc.) so we can become the nanny state where they take care of everything, and they remain in power. It is so clear and transparent, but too many are looking through their hippy lenses of the 60's that color things to appear utopian in their eyes. The thinking then goes into "Well if my government will do it for me, why should I try?".

Now our coffers are expanding, deficits are being reduced, but they are still complaining.
WHAAA WHAAA WHAA!!!

The article goes on:

This revenue surge from investment income also rebuts the mantra that the 2003 tax cuts were a giveaway to the rich. Nearly half of all Americans have some kind of stock ownership, and thus have shared in these gains in investment income. And if most of the extra tax income is coming from capital gains and dividend payments, that would have to mean that the rich in America are paying more taxes, not less, as a result of the 2003 tax cut.

By the way, we don't recall Mr. Spratt and other Democrats lamenting when a similar spike in taxes from investment income was boosting tax revenues to historic heights as a share of GDP during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, as per the nearby chart. Then it was all said to be an economic miracle; now it's a windfall for the wealthy. This selective budget criticism couldn't be related to who's sitting in the White House, could it?

Gitmo Spa and Resorts

This quote was taken from the Federalist Patriot, whom credited the Wall Street Journal with it.

"In the wake of London, the political attacks on Guantanamo deserve special mention here. That detention center is designed to hold precisely the kind of stateless, uniform-less terrorists who carry out such attacks. Clearly these men remain a threat, and we have to find somewhere to put them once they are captured so they can't return to kill more innocents. Senator Joe Biden and others who want to close Guantanamo have to tell us where they'd rather have such men detained, or why in the world they'd let them go before this war is over. Closing Guantanamo now strikes us as appeasement, pure and simple. Which brings us back to those G-8 leaders. The solidarity that existed after 9/11 splintered all too easily in the wake of Iraq, and it hasn't returned even though both Mr. Blair and President Bush have been re-endorsed by their electorates. France has been especially unwilling to let NATO play a larger role in Iraq, as if the main security threat to Europe isn't the terrorism that has its wellspring in the Middle East. Only yesterday al-Qa'ida's wing in Iraq claimed it had killed Egypt's ambassador to Baghdad and promised to kill 'as many ambassadors as we can.' The terrorists believe Iraq is the central battlefield in the war on terror, even if some in the West still don't. Perhaps the London bombings will inspire a new shared determination." --The Wall Street Journal"

I heard one of these critics of Gitmo who falls lockstep in with Biden and his liberal squats being interviewed on the radio last week. It was a pretty objective interview (I forgot whom the interviewer was, sorry) but when asked any question to try to define their view, it was like psychobabble. Nothing solid except to criticize those who are trying to guard these terrorists down there and not giving them enough basic human rights. Should we build a day spa for them? What aren't we doing that makes them not treated right as a terrorist should be treated?

The one question they absolutely stammered on was, 'OK, we close Gitmo, where do we put them now?' No one had an answer.

They have no solutions, rather just criticisms. Don't you think they could be more constructive perhaps?

Aggression or Appeasement

Ok, I know it's about time, but today's events needs commenting. I was reading in Scrappleface.com some comments. I don't think there has been a subject that received so many comments in that amount of time, so people are really heated up about this. One caught my eye and I couldn't let it go, I had to respond. Here is my post to it:

Ok, it's late and I see this has received many comments,
I don't have time to scroll through them all, but one got my attention:

Posted by: boberin at July 7, 2005 08:28 AM
I'm betting that if we kill a bunch more of them that they will finally see the light and realize what a loving bunch we are. Just a few more should do it, maybe more than a few but what's the difference? We'll kill all it takes to make them feel loved. Then all will be right with the world.

Ok, so we don't fight them. Appeasement looks like an only alternative. Let's look how that has worked out. England, WWII, tried it and almost bombed to smitherings. France, same war, thought they could be a friend, and got ran over, and we had to save their ungrateful behinds.
So how do you think that will work out.
Then again, let's look at how non-appeasment has worked out. United States, when bombed by Japan, we were very aggressive, and thank goodness, we do not live in an Eastern Empirical dictatorship. When our allies needed our help, we met agression with our own agression, and now, Europe (at that time, and I know they are doing their best to screw that up) is free.
So, what road works out here. Do the history, do the math, think about it!!
Kirk out!!
Posted by kwl at July 8, 2005 12:24 AM

What are your thoughts? Let if flow!!