Lybia timeline

The White House Disinformation Campaign on Libya

Published on Oct 7, 2012 by

An Incriminating Timeline: http://herit.ag/WMfTr6 | New evidence shows there were security threats in Benghazi, Libya, in the months prior to the deadly September 11, 2012, attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the Obama Administration and State Department left its personnel there to fend for themselves.

__________

It seems the White House can not get their facts right, or maybe they didn’t want the American people to know the real facts?

Helle Dale

October 12, 2012 at 5:10 pm

Vice President Biden’s assertions during the debate last night showed either a lack of information or a willful disregard for the facts.

Biden stated in relation to the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi—which killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens—that “We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there.”

Biden’s assertions squarely contradict headline-grabbing testimony given just the day before to Members of Congress. At Wednesday’s hearing of the House Oversight and Government Accountability Committee, Eric Nordstrom, a regional security officer at the U.S.embassy in Tripoli, described his intense frustration at having his requests for more security turned down by State Department officials. In fact, said the exasperated Nordstrom, fighting violent extremists inLibya was nowhere near as tough as fighting bureaucrats inWashington.

A timeline of the events leading up to the terrorist attack on September 11 shows that terrorism is indeed alive and well in Libya, a very inconvenient fact for the Obama Administration. The U.S. consulate had been attacked with explosive devices twice in six months, and diplomatic vehicles were routinely targets of assault and attempted kidnappings. The British ambassador had also been attacked, as had the building of the International Red Cross.

The Obama Administration continues to cling to the fiction that Libya is an Arab Spring success story, where normalizing relations and downgrading security would be appropriate. Even in the face of this terrorist attack, Charlene Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, stated at Wednesday’s hearing that security in Libya was “exactly right.” Unbelievable.

The aftermath of the Benghazi attack—one might call it the cover-up—is equally messy. The State Department appears determined to not take the blame and is shifting blame back to the White House for the post-attack cover-up. In two conference calls Tuesday—one with staff of five congressional committees and one with reporters (minus Fox News)—unnamed State Department officials denied that there was ever a demonstration outside the Benghazi consulate over the anti-Islam YouTube video “The Innocence of Muslims.” “That was not our conclusion,” the officials said repeatedly.

This distances the State Department from the official White House line that the 14-minute amateurish video was the cause of it all and not resurgent al-Qaeda terrorism. In particular, it distances the State Department from U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and her five now-famous Sunday show appearances in which she unswervingly peddled the White House line as a fact.

Most importantly, however, it is now amply clear that terrorism did not die with Osama bin Laden and that we do not have a policy to deal with it. The Vice President got that one wrong, too.

October 13, 2012 – 12:49 pm Categories: Current Events, President Obama | Post a comment

Harding,Kennedy and Reagan proved that the Laffer Curve works

 I enjoyed this article below because it demonstrates that the Laffer Curve has been working for almost 100 years now when it is put to the test in the USA. I actually got to hear Arthur Laffer speak in person in 1981 and he told us in advance what was going to happen the 1980’s and it all came about as he said it would when Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts took place. I wish we would lower taxes now instead of looking for more revenue through raised taxes. We have to grow the economy:

What Mitt Romney Said Last Night About Tax Cuts And The Deficit Was Absolutely Right. And What Obama Said Was Absolutely Wrong.

Mitt Romney repeatedly said last night that he would not allow tax cuts to add to the deficit.  He repeatedly said it because over and over again Obama blathered the liberal talking point that cutting taxes necessarily increased deficits.

Romney’s exact words: “I want to underline that — no tax cut that adds to the deficit.”

Meanwhile, Obama has promised to cut the deficit in half during his first four years – but instead gave America the highest deficits in the history of the entire human race.

I’ve written about this before.  Let’s replay what has happened every single time we’ve ever cut the income tax rate.

The fact of the matter is that we can go back to Calvin Coolidge who said very nearly THE EXACT SAME THING to his treasury secretary: he too would not allow any tax cuts that added to the debt.  Andrew Mellon – quite possibly the most brilliant economic mind of his day – did a great deal of research and determined what he believed was the best tax rate.  And the Coolidge administration DID cut income taxes and MASSIVELY increased revenues.  Coolidge and Mellon cut the income tax rate 67.12 percent (from 73 to 24 percent); and revenues not only did not go down, but they went UP by at least 42.86 percent (from $700 billion to over $1 billion).

That’s something called a documented fact.  But that wasn’t all that happened: another incredible thing was that the taxes and percentage of taxes paid actually went UP for the rich.  Because as they were allowed to keep more of the profits that they earned by investing in successful business, they significantly increased their investments and therefore paid more in taxes than they otherwise would have had they continued sheltering their money to protect themselves from the higher tax rates.  Liberals ignore reality, but it is simply true.  It is a fact.  It happened.

Then FDR came along and raised the tax rates again and the opposite happened: we collected less and less revenue while the burden of taxation fell increasingly on the poor and middle class again.  Which is exactly what Obama wants to do.

People don’t realize that John F. Kennedy, one of the greatest Democrat presidents, was a TAX CUTTER who believed the conservative economic philosophy that cutting tax rates would in fact increase tax revenues.  He too cut taxes, and he too increased tax revenues.

So we get to Ronald Reagan, who famously cut taxes.  And again, we find that Reagan cut that godawful liberal tax rate during an incredibly godawful liberal-caused economic recession, and he increased tax revenue by 20.71 percent (with revenues increasing from $956 billion to $1.154 trillion).  And again, the taxes were paid primarily by the rich:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So we get to George Bush and the Bush tax cuts that liberals and in particular Obama have just demonized up one side and demagogued down the other.  And I can simply quote the New York Times AT the time:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

And of course the New York Times, as reliable liberals, use the adjective whenever something good happens under conservative policies and whenever something bad happens under liberal policies: ”unexpected.”   But it WASN’T ”unexpected.”  It was EXACTLY what Republicans had said would happen and in fact it was exactly what HAD IN FACT HAPPENED every single time we’ve EVER cut income tax rates.

The truth is that conservative tax policy has a perfect track record: every single time it has ever been tried, we have INCREASED tax revenues while not only exploding economic activity and creating more jobs, but encouraging the wealthy to pay more in taxes as well.  And liberals simply dishonestly refuse to acknowledge documented history.

Meanwhile, liberals also have a perfect record … of FAILURE.  They keep raising taxes and keep not understanding why they don’t get the revenues they predicted.

The following is a section from my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues“, where I document every single thing I said above:

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

Now let’s take a look at the utterly fallacious view that tax cuts in general create higher deficits.

Let’s take a trip back in time, starting with the 1920s.  From Burton Folsom’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history.  Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment.  High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people” (page 128).

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.”  And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent.  These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies.  Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains.  President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue.  In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million.  In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark.  Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

Now, that is incredible upon its face, but it becomes even more incredible when contrasted with FDR’s antibusiness and confiscatory tax policies, which both dramatically shrunk in terms of actual income tax revenues (from $1.096 billion in 1929 to $527 million in 1935), and dramatically shifted the tax burden to the backs of the poor by imposing huge new excise taxes (from $540 million in 1929 to $1.364 billion in 1935).  See Table 1 on page 125 of New Deal or Raw Deal for that information.

FDR both collected far less taxes from the rich, while imposing a far more onerous tax burden upon the poor.

It is simply a matter of empirical fact that tax cuts create increased revenue, and that those [Democrats] who have refused to pay attention to that fact have ended up reducing government revenues even as they increased the burdens on the poorest whom they falsely claim to help.

Let’s move on to John F. Kennedy, one of the most popular Democrat presidents ever.  Few realize that he was also a supply-side tax cutter.

Kennedy said:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.

So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues?  Hardly:

We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts.  And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASEof revenue.

So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue.  But who paid the increased tax revenue?  The poor?  Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall.  But that was exactly wrong.  In reality:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades.  Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan whipped inflation.  Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.

________

The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring

October 12, 2012 – 7:07 am Categories: Cato Institute, Ronald Reagan, Taxes | Post a comment

1980 Presidential Debate Reagan v. Carter video and transcript, 9th issue: Closing Statements

1980 Presidential Candidate Debate: Governor Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter – 10/28/80

Above is the video of the complete debate. Below is the 9th part of the transcript that deals with the closing statements of both candidates. This segment begins at  1:28  minute mark.

October 28, 1980 Debate Transcript

October 28, 1980

The Carter-Reagan Presidential Debate

MR. SMITH: Gentlemen, each of you now has three minutes for a closing statement. President Carter, you’re first.

MR. CARTER: First of all, I’d like to thank the League of Women Voters for making this debate possible. I think it’s been a very constructive debate and I hope it’s helped to acquaint the American people with the sharp differences between myself and Governor Reagan. Also, I want to thank the people of Cleveland and Ohio for being such hospitable hosts during these last few hours in my life. I’ve been President now for almost four years. I’ve had to make thousands of decisions, and each one of those decisions has been a learning process. I’ve seen the strength of my nation, and I’ve seen the crises it approached in a tentative way. And I’ve had to deal with those crises as best I could. As I’ve studied the record between myself and Governor Reagan, I’ve been impressed with the stark differences that exist between us. I think the result of this debate indicates that that fact is true. I consider myself in the mainstream of my party. I consider myself in the mainstream even of the bipartisan list of Presidents who served before me. The United States must be a nation strong; the United States must be a nation secure. We must have a society that’s just and fair. And we must extend the benefits of our own commitment to peace, to create a peaceful world. I believe that since I’ve been in office, there have been six or eight areas of combat evolved in other parts of the world. In each case, I alone have had to determine the interests of my country and the degree of involvement of my country. I’ve done that with moderation, with care, with thoughtfulness; sometimes consulting experts. But, I’ve learned in this last three and a half years that when an issue is extremely difficult, when the call is very close, the chances are the experts will be divided almost 50-50. And the final judgment about the future of the nation – war, peace, involvement, reticence, thoughtfulness, care, consideration, concern – has to be made by the man in the Oval Office. It’s a lonely job, but with the involvement of the American people in the process, with an open Government, the job is a very gratifying one. The American people now are facing, next Tuesday, a lonely decision. Those listening to my voice will have to make a judgment about the future of this country. And I think they ought to remember that one vote can make a lot of difference. If one vote per precinct had changed in 1960, John Kennedy would never have been President of this nation. And if a few more people had gone to the polls and voted in 1968, Hubert Humphrey would have been President; Richard Nixon would not. There is a partnership involved in our nation. To stay strong, to stay at peace, to raise high the banner of human rights, to set an example for the rest of the world, to let our deep beliefs and commitments be felt by others in other nations, is my plan for the future. I ask the American people to join me in this partnership.

MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan?

MR. REAGAN: Yes, I would like to add my words of thanks, too, to the ladies of the League of Women Voters for making these debates possible. I’m sorry that we couldn’t persuade the bringing in of the third candidate, so that he could have been seen also in these debates. But still, it’s good that at least once, all three of us were heard by the people of this country. Next Tuesday is Election Day. Next Tuesday all of you will go to the polls, will stand there in the polling place and make a decision. I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don’t agree, if you don’t think that this course that we’ve been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have. This country doesn’t have to be in the shape that it is in. We do not have to go on sharing in scarcity with the country getting worse off, with unemployment growing. We talk about the unemployment lines. If all of the unemployed today were in a single line allowing two feet for each of them, that line would reach from New York City to Los Angeles, California. All of this can be cured and all of it can be solved. I have not had the experience the President has had in holding that office, but I think in being Governor of California, the most populous state in the Union – if it were a nation, it would be the seventh-ranking economic power in the world – I, too, had some lonely moments and decisions to make. I know that the economic program that I have proposed for this nation in the next few years can resolve many of the problems that trouble us today. I know because we did it there. We cut the cost – the increased cost of government – in half over the eight years. We returned $5.7 billion in tax rebates, credits and cuts to our people. We, as I have said earlier, fell below the national average in inflation when we did that. And I know that we did give back authority and autonomy to the people. I would like to have a crusade today, and I would like to lead that crusade with your help. And it would be one to take Government off the backs of the great people of this country, and turn you loose again to do those things that I know you can do so well, because you did them and made this country great. Thank you.

October 12, 2012 – 6:51 am Categories: Ronald Reagan | Post a comment

Open letter to President Obama (Part 154)

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 1 of 5

Uploaded by  on Apr 9, 2010

Wallbuilders’ Founder and President David Barton joins Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel for the full hour to discuss our Godly heritage and how faith was the foundational principle upon which America was built.

___________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. 

There have been many articles written by evangelicals like me who fear that our founding fathers would not recognize our country today because secular humanism has rid our nation of spiritual roots.

Lillian Kwon noted in her article, “Christianity losing out to Secular Humanism?” :

America once stood on the foundation of God’s Word. But that foundation is crumbling – even in the church – and being replaced by man’s word, observed one Christian apologist.

“Whatever we (America) once were, we are no longer. We have changed,” said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, in his second State of the Nation address on Tuesday.

The Young Earth creationist was citing President Obama’s well-known mantra that America is no longer just a Christian nation as he delivered an hour-long speech outlining where America and Christianity stand today – just weeks after Obama’s State of the Union address.

He sees Christianity being thrown out of the public sector and mocked and generations of Americans building their worldview on secular humanism.

“Most of the founding fathers of this nation … built the worldview of this nation on the authority of the Word of God,” he said. “Because of that, there have been reminders in this culture concerning God’s Word, the God of creation.”

David Barton did a great job with this article America’s Religious Heritage As Demonstrated in Presidential Inaugurations :

David Barton – 01/2009
America’s Religious Heritage
As Demonstrated in Presidential InaugurationsReligious activities at presidential inaugurations have become the target of criticism in recent years, 1 with legal challenges being filed to halt activities as simple as inaugural prayers and the use of “so help me God” in the presidential oath. 2 These critics – evidently based on a deficient education – wrongly believe that the official governmental arena is to be aggressively secular and religion-free. The history of inaugurations provides some of the most authoritative proof of the fallacy of these modern arguments.In fact, since America’s first inauguration in 1789 included seven distinct religious activities, that original inauguration is worthy of review. Every inauguration since 1789 has included numerous of those activities.The First InaugurationConstitutional experts abounded at America’s first inauguration. Not only was the first inauguree (George Washington) a signer of the Constitution but numerous drafters of the Constitution were serving in the Congress that organized and directed that first inauguration. In fact, just under one fourth of the members of the first Congress had been delegates to the Convention that wrote the Constitution. 3 Furthermore, the identical Congress that directed and oversaw these inaugural activities also penned the First Amendment. Having therefore produced both the Constitution and all of its clauses on religion, they clearly knew what types of religious activities were and were not constitutional. Clearly, then, the religious activities that occurred at the first inauguration may well be said to have the approval and imprimatur of the greatest collection of constitutional experts America has ever known. Therefore, a review of the religious activities acceptable in that first inauguration will provide guidance for citizens in general and critics in particular.The first inauguration occurred in New York City. (New York City served as the nation’s capital for the first year of the new federal government; for the next ten, Philadelphia was the capital city; in 1800, the federal government moved to Washington, D. C. for its permanent home). George Washington had been at home at Mt. Vernon when Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress, notified him that he had been unanimously elected as the nation’s first president.

On receiving this news, Washington departed from Mt. Vernon and began his trek toward New York City, stopping first at Fredericksburg, Virginia, to visit his mother, Mary¬ – the last time the two would see each other. Mary was eighty-two and suffering from incurable breast cancer. Mary parted with her son, giving him her blessings and offering him her prayers, telling him: “You will see me no more; my great age and the disease which is rapidly approaching my vitals, warn me that I shall not be long in this world. Go, George; fulfill the high destinies which Heaven appears to assign to you; go, my son, and may that Heaven’s and your mother’s blessing be with you always.” 4Washington did go, and he did indeed fulfill the high destinies assigned him by Heaven. A moving painting was made of her giving him her final charge; his mother passed away a few months after that final meeting.

Leaving his mother, Washington continued northward toward New York City. In town after town along the way, special dinners and celebrations were held – including in Alexandria, Georgetown, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Trenton, and other locations. Finally reaching Elizabethtown, New Jersey, Washington boarded a barge that carried him the rest of the way, where another celebration awaited him upon entering New York Harbor.

On April 30th, 1789, George Washington was to be inaugurated on the balcony outside Federal Hall. (Federal Hall was originally named Old Hall, but New York City – in an effort to convince the new federal government that the City was serious about becoming the national capital – remodeled the structure, renaming it Federal Hall. The House and Senate met in two chambers inside that Hall, and the inauguration took place on the remodeled building’s balcony.) Incidentally, religious activities had been planned to precede the inauguration, with the people of New York City being called to a time of prayer. The papers in the Capital City reported on that scheduled activity:

[O]n the morning of the day on which our illustrious President will be invested with his office, the bells will ring at nine o’clock, when the people may go up to the house of God and in a solemn manner commit the new government, with its important train of consequences, to the holy protection and blessing of the Most high. An early hour is prudently fixed for this peculiar act of devotion and . . . is designed wholly for prayer. 5

The preparations for the inauguration had been extensive; everything had been well planned; the event seemed to be proceeding smoothly. The parade carrying Washington by horse-drawn carriage to the swearing-in was nearing Federal Hall when it was realized that no Bible had been obtained for administering the oath. Parade Marshal Jacob Morton hurried to the nearby Masonic Lodge and grabbed its large 1767 King James Bible.

The Bible was laid upon a crimson velvet cushion (held by Samuel Otis, Secretary of the Senate) and, with a huge crowd gathered below watching the ceremony on the balcony, New York Chancellor Robert Livingston was to administer the oath of office. (Robert Livingston had been one of the five Founders who had drafted the Declaration of Independence; however, he was called back to New York to help his State through the Revolution before he could affix his signature to the very document he had helped write. As Chancellor, Livingston was the highest ranking judicial official in New York.) Beside Livingston and Washington stood several distinguished officials, including Vice President John Adams, original Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, Generals Henry Knox and Philip Schuyler, and a number of others. The Bible was opened at random to the latter part of Genesis; Washington placed his left hand upon the open Bible, raised his right, and then took the oath of office prescribed by the Constitution. Washington then bent over and kissed the Bible, reverently closed his eyes, and said, “So help me God!” Chancellor Livingston then proclaimed, “It is done!” Turning to the crowd assembled below, he shouted, “Long live George Washington – the first President of the United States!” That shout was echoed and re-echoed by the crowd below.

Critics today claim that George Washington never added “So help me God!” to his oath 6 – that associating religious intent with the oath is of recent origins. After all, the presidential oath of office as prescribed in Article II of the Constitution simply states:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

But overlooked by many today is the fact that the Framers of our government considered an oath to be inherently religious – something George Washington affirmed when he appended the phrase “So help me God” to the end of the oath. In fact, it was universally acknowledged by every American legal scholar of that day that any legally-binding oath was overtly religious in nature. As signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon succinctly explained:

An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of Hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation [a calling down] of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate [lie]. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship. . . . Persons entering on public offices are also often obliged to make oath that they will faithfully execute their trust. . . . In vows, there is no party but God and the person himself who makes the vow. 7  

1. A number of legal authorities, university professors, and news writers have criticized inaugural religious activities. See, for example, Alan M. Dershowitz, “Bush Starts Off by Defying the Constitution,” Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, January 24, 2001 Metro section, Part B, p. 9; Larry Judkins, Religion Page Editor, Sacramento Valley Mirror, “Dershowitz Piece Misleading: All Presidents Flaunt Constitution,” in Positive Atheism Magazine, Thursday, January 25, 2001 (at: http://www.positiveatheism.org); “President Bush Announces Religious Agenda on Inauguration Day,” Americans United for Separation of Church and State, January 20, 2001 (at:http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=6095); et. Al.(Return)

2. Noted atheist Michael Newdow filed suit in federal court to have prayers barred from the Presidential Inauguration of 2001, 2005, and in 2009 to have inaugural prayers halted and to prevent the Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court from saying “So help me God” when administering the oath of office to the president. (Return)

3. Significantly, many of the U. S. Senators at the first Inauguration had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention that framed the Constitution including William Samuel Johnson, Oliver Ellsworth, George Read, Richard Bassett, William Few, Caleb Strong, John Langdon, William Paterson, Robert Morris, and Pierce Butler; and many members of the House had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Roger Sherman, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Hugh Williamson, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimmons, and James Madison.(Return)

4. Benson J. Lossing, Our Country: A Household History for All Readers (New York: Henry J. Johnson, 1877), Vol. IV, p. 1121. (Return)

5. The Daily Advertiser, New York, Thursday, April 23, 1789, p. 2. (Return)

6. See, for example, Newdow v. Roberts, complaint filed by Newdow on December 29, 2008, pp. 20-21, par. 103-104 of the complaint. See also Cathy Lynn Grossman, “No proof Washington said ‘so help me God’ – will Obama,”USA Today, January 9, 2009 (at:http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-07-washington-oath_N.htm). (Return)

7. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. VII, pp. 139-140, 142, from his “Lectures on Moral Philosophy,” Lecture 16 on Oaths and Vows. (Return)

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
October 12, 2012 – 6:50 am Categories: Current Events, President Obama | Post a comment

“Friedman Friday” Quotes from Milton Friedman (part 4)

John Stossel – Influence of Milton Friedman

When I think of the last 4 years and where the federal government has gone crazy spending our money trying to be “fair,” it makes me realize how wise Milton Friedman was when he talked about how to best achieve equality:

Here are some quotes from Milton Friedman that I thought you would enjoy:

  • Spending by government currently amounts to about 45 percent of national income. By that test, government owns 45 percent of the means of production that produce the national income. The U.S. is now 45 percent socialist.
  • The stock of money, prices and output was decidedly more unstable after the establishment of the Reserve System than before. The most dramatic period of instability in output was, of course, the period between the two wars, which includes the severe (monetary) contractions of 1920-1, 1929-33, and 1937-8. No other 20 year period in American history contains as many as three such severe contractions.
    This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War I is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System… and that the severity of each of the major contractions — 1920-1, 1929-33 and 1937-8 is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities…
    Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes — excusable or not — can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic — this is the key political argument against an independent central bank…
    To paraphrase Clemenceau, money is much too serious a matter to be left to the central bankers.

  • I know of no severe depression, in any country or any time, that was not accompanied by a sharp decline in the stock of money and equally of no sharp decline in the stock of money that was not accompanied by a severe depression.
  • The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of money in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933
    • National Public Radio interview (Jan 1996)

One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results.

October 12, 2012 – 6:27 am Categories: Milton Friedman | Post a comment

FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE – Barack Obama VS Mitt Romney (Part 7)

FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE – Barack Obama VS Mitt Romney (Part 7)

Published on Oct 3, 2012 by

Barack Obama & Mitt Romney Full Presidential Debate

__________

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 147)

President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. If you […]

Romney responds to my letter on abortion

Francis Schaeffer February 21, 1982 (Part 1) Uploaded by DeBunker7 on Feb 21, 2008 I sent Romney 12 letters on the prolife movement and many of these letters including the writings of Dr. Francis Schaeffer. Here are two clips from Schaeffer that sum up his views on abortion. _______________ Francis Schaeffer February 21, 1982 (Part […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 142 B)

President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here. This excessive […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 136 B)

Real Time with Bill Maher March 16 2012 – Alexandra Pelosi Interviews Welfare Recipients in NYC Published on Mar 18, 2012 by vclubscenedotcom Real Time with Bill Maher March 16 2012 – Alexandra Pelosi Interviews Welfare Recipients ____________ President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I […]

Open letter to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on our pro-life views (Part 12)

To Mitt Romney, Box 96861, Washington, DC 20090-6861,  From Everette Hatcher of http://www.thedailyhatch.org 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002 Did we forgive George Bush in 1988 for being pro-choice originally in 1980? We sure did. In fact, my former pastor, Adrian Rogers, had a chance to visit with Bush several times. He told him that the […]

Open letter to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on our pro-life views (Part 11)

To Mitt Romney, Box 96861, Washington, DC 20090-6861,  From Everette Hatcher of http://www.thedailyhatch.org 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002 Did we forgive George Bush in 1988 for being pro-choice originally in 1980? We sure did. In fact, my former pastor, Adrian Rogers, had a chance to visit with Bush several times. He told him that the […]

Open letter to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on our pro-life views (Part 10)

A Ronald Reagan radio address from 1975 addresses the topics of abortion and adoption. This comes from a collection of audio commentaries titled “Reagan in His Own Voice.” To Mitt Romney, Box 96861, Washington, DC 20090-6861,  From Everette Hatcher of http://www.thedailyhatch.org 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002 Did we forgive George Bush in 1988 for being […]

Open letter to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on our pro-life views (Part 9)

To Mitt Romney, Box 96861, Washington, DC 20090-6861,  From Everette Hatcher of http://www.thedailyhatch.org 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002 Did we forgive George Bush in 1988 for being pro-choice originally in 1980? We sure did. In fact, my former pastor, Adrian Rogers, had a chance to visit with Bush several times. He told him that the […]

Open letter to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on our pro-life views (Part 8)

Superbowl commercial with Tim Tebow and Mom. To Mitt Romney, Box 96994, Washington, DC 20077-7556  From Everette Hatcher of http://www.thedailyhatch.org 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002 Did we forgive George Bush in 1988 for being pro-choice originally in 1980? We sure did. In fact, my former pastor, Adrian Rogers, had a chance to visit with Bush […]

Open letter to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on our pro-life views (Part 7)

___________________________________________ Francis Schaeffer is a hero of mine and I want to honor him with a series of posts on Sundays called “Schaeffer Sundays” which will include his writings and clips from his film series. I have posted many times in the past using his material. Philosopher and Theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer has argued, “If […]

Open letter to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on our pro-life views (Part 6)

A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer (Part 1) To Mitt Romney, Box 149756, Boston, MA 02114-9756  From Everette Hatcher of http://www.thedailyhatch.org 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002 Did we forgive George Bush in 1988 for being pro-choice originally in 1980? We sure did. In fact, my former pastor, Adrian Rogers, had a chance to visit with […]

Open letter to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on our pro-life views (Part 5)

Part 1 Part 2 To Mitt Romney, Box 149756, Boston, MA 02114-9756  From Everette Hatcher of http://www.thedailyhatch.org 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002 Did we forgive George Bush in 1988 for being pro-choice originally in 1980? We sure did. In fact, my former pastor, Adrian Rogers, had a chance to visit with Bush several times. He […]

Open letter to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on our pro-life views (Part 4)

Part 1 Part 2 To Mitt Romney, Box 149756, Boston, MA 02114-9756  From Everette Hatcher of http://www.thedailyhatch.org 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002 Did we forgive George Bush in 1988 for being pro-choice originally in 1980? We sure did. In fact, my former pastor, Adrian Rogers, had a chance to visit with Bush several times. He […]

Open letter to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on our pro-life views (Part 3)

To Mitt Romney, Box 96994, Washington, DC 20077-7556  From Everette Hatcher of http://www.thedailyhatch.org 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002 Did we forgive George Bush in 1988 for being pro-choice originally in 1980? We sure did. In fact, my former pastor, Adrian Rogers, had a chance to visit with Bush several times. He told him that the […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 125B)

Obama Calls GOP Budget Plan “Prescription for Decline” Uploaded by PBSNewsHour on Apr 3, 2012 In a blistering attack on the House-Passed Republican budget Tuesday, President Obama called the plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan a “Trojan Horse” and “a prescription for decline.” Judy Woodruff, Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities […]

President Obama responds to Heritage Foundation critics on welfare reform waivers

Is President Obama gutting the welfare reform that Bill Clinton signed into law? Morning Bell: Obama Denies Gutting Welfare Reform Amy Payne August 8, 2012 at 9:15 am The Obama Administration came out swinging against its critics on welfare reform yesterday, with Press Secretary Jay Carney saying the charge that the Administration gutted the successful […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 117.3)

A Taxing Distinction for ObamaCare Published on Jun 28, 2012 by catoinstitutevideo http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/it-now-falls-congress http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/taxing-decision http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/supreme-court-unlawfully-rewrites-obamacare-to… http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/congress-its-not-a-tax-scotus-yes-it-is/ The Cato Institute’s Roger Pilon, Ilya Shapiro, Michael F. Cannon, Michael D. Tanner and Trevor Burrus evaluate today’s ruling on ObamaCare at the Supreme Court. Video produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg. ____________ President Obama c/o The […]

Cartoons about Obama’s class warfare

I have written a lot about this in the past and sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh. Laughing at Obama’s Bumbling Class Warfare Agenda July 13, 2012 by Dan Mitchell We know that President Obama’s class-warfare agenda is bad economic policy. We know high tax rates undermine competitiveness. And we know tax increases […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response June 15, 2012 on Healthcare (part 8)

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on June 15, 2012. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

Letter to White House generated form letter response April 3, 2011 (part 4)

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on April 3, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have linked […]

“Feedback Friday” Letter to White House generated form letter response (on how to jumpstart the economy) March 7, 2011 (part 3)

I have been writing President Obama letters and have not received a personal response yet.  (He reads 10 letters a day personally and responds to each of them.) However, I did receive a form letter in the form of an email on March 7, 2011. I don’t know which letter of mine generated this response so I have […]

 

October 12, 2012 – 6:13 am Categories: President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

Open letter to Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin concerning their choice to raise their kids in the Jewish Faith (part 3)

gwyneth paltrow 230x300 Gwyneth Paltrow Wants a Baby

The Birth Of Israel (2008) – Part 3/8

I have posted before about the religious views of Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin. Now it appears they have rejected their agnostic statements of the past and have decided to raise their children in the Jewish faith.

Here is a post from the Huffington Post:

After appearing on the television program, “Who Do You Think You Are,” Gwyneth Paltrow has decided to raise children Apple, 7, and Moses, 5, as Jewish.

According to The Daily Mail, the NBC ancestry show sparked the discovery that the actress descended from a notable line of Eastern European rabbis. Though she’s long practiced Kabbalah, Gwyneth had previously stayed neutral about a formal religion upbringing in her household, which includes crooner husband Chris Martin, who is of Christian background.

“I don’t believe in religion. I believe in spirituality. Religion is the cause of all the problems in the world,” the actress once told The Daily Mail.

_______________

Below is a letter I mailed to Chris and Gwyneth recently:

To Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow, c/o Go Go Pictures, 12 Cleveland Row, London, SW1A 1DH, United Kingdom, , From Everette Hatcher, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, USA:

I have been a huge fan of both of you and have posted many times on my blog about your religious views which have seemed to have changed over the years. I know that Chris was brought up as an evangelical Christian, but has long ago left the faith behind although he did revisit many biblical themes in his 2008 and 2011 cds.

In fact, on June 3, 2011 on my blog (www.thedailyhatch.org) I wrote:

I have shown what thought processes Solomon went through in Ecclesiastes and then compared them to the evident changes that are occurring with Coldplay. By the way, the final chapter of Ecclesiastes finishes with Solomon emphasizing that serving God is the only proper response of man. My prediction: I am hoping that Coldplay’s next album will also come to that same conclusion that Solomon came to in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14:
13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

I have also written before about Gwyneth’s famous Jewish relatives which includes a famous Rabbi and I have wondered if she would decide to return to those roots. Actually that is what has happened. I salute you for rejecting your earlier statements against organized religion and for making the decision to teach your children the Bible and to have faith in God. 

I know that you will spending lots of time in the scriptures and I wanted to share with you some key scriptures that talk about the Messiah being pierced.

Dr. Hugh Ross noted:

 Let me point out that some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel’s King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah’s death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead.

Zechariah 12:10 (New International Version)

Mourning for the One They Pierced

 10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit [a] of grace and supplication. They will look on [b] me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. 

Probably the most amazing fact to me is that the prophet Moses foretold (with some additions by Jeremiah and Jesus) that the ancient Jewish nation would be conquered twice and that the people would be carried off as slaves each time, first by the Babylonians (for a period of 70 years), and then by a fourth world kingdom (which we know as Rome). The second conqueror, Moses said, would take the Jews captive to Egypt in ships, selling them or giving them away as slaves to all parts of the world. Both of these predictions were fulfilled to the letter, the first in 607 B.C. and the second in 70 A.D. God’s spokesmen said, further, that the Jews would remain scattered throughout the entire world for many generations, but without becoming assimilated by the peoples or of other nations, and that the Jews would one day return to the land of Palestine to re-establish for a second time their nation (Deuteronomy 29; Isaiah 11:11-13; Jeremiah 25:11; Hosea 3:4-5 and Luke 21:23-24).

This prophetic statement sweeps across 3500 years of history to its complete fulfillment—in our lifetime.  ( last two points from http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible )

Isaiah 11:11-13 (New International Version)

11 In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, [a] from Cush, [b] from Elam, from Babylonia, [c] from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.

 12 He will raise a banner for the nations
       and gather the exiles of Israel;
       he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
       from the four quarters of the earth.

 13 Ephraim’s jealousy will vanish,
       and Judah’s enemies [d] will be cut off;
       Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah,
       nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim.

(http://jewsandjoes.com/history-and-timeline-of-israel-and-judah.html)

Amos 9:11-15 (New International Version)

Israel’s Restoration

 11 “In that day I will restore
       David’s fallen tent.
       I will repair its broken places,
       restore its ruins,
       and build it as it used to be,

 12 so that they may possess the remnant of Edom
       and all the nations that bear my name, [a] ”
       declares the LORD, who will do these things.

 13 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
       “when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman
       and the planter by the one treading grapes.
       New wine will drip from the mountains
       and flow from all the hills.

 14 I will bring back my exiled [b] people Israel;
       they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
       They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
       they will make gardens and eat their fruit.

 15 I will plant Israel in their own land,
       never again to be uprooted
       from the land I have given them,”
       says the LORD your God.

October 12, 2012 – 6:11 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Heritage Foundation looks at facts mentioned in first Presidential Debate (Part 3)

FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE – Barack Obama VS Mitt Romney (Part 5)

Published on Oct 3, 2012 by

Barack Obama & Mitt Romney Full Presidential Debate

__________

Setting the record straight on the first presidential debate is very easy if you are a reader of the Heritage Foundation website!!! Here are some examples below taken from Romina Boccia‘s excellent article from October 4, 2012:

Romina Boccia

October 4, 2012 at 5:41 pm

During last night’s presidential debate, claims were flying fast and furious. Some of these claims were true, others false. Here are the top 10—see which ones you can guess as either true or false.


 

7.      Natural gas production is up in spite of Obama’s policies, not because of them.

Romney: “[T]he President pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies. Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land.”

True.Much of the increased oil and gas production is on private lands, over which the Administration has no control. According to a recent report from the Energy Information Administration, energy production decreased 13 percent on federal lands in fiscal year (FY) 2011 compared to FY 2010.

8.      Businesses can take a deduction for moving jobs overseas.

Obama: “I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas.”

False.President Obama falsely claimed businesses can take a deduction for moving jobs overseas. No such deduction exists. Moreover, President Obama demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the global economy works by suggesting that companies investing overseas destroy jobs at home. A U.S. business investing abroad is good for the U.S. economy because it makes the company more competitive at home and abroad in selling products into global markets, which often creates more jobs for Americans.

9.      America’s corporate tax rate is uncompetitive.

Obama: “When it comes to our tax code, Governor Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high, so I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent.”

True. At over 39 percent, the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate among industrialized nations. The average of all industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including the U.S. rate, is about 25 percent. To regain standing compared to competing nations, Congress should lower the rate so it is on par with the current OECD average. Despite this, President Obama has proposed to raise taxes on those firms with multinational operations. This would not insource jobs, but outsource ownership of U.S. firms.

10.  Social Security is structurally sound.

Obama: “Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked, [but] the basic structure is sound.”

False. Social Security is running permanent and growing deficits, threatening a 25 percent cut in Social Security benefits in 21 years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently confirmed that Social Security has been running deficits of about 4 percent for two years in a row and that these will only get worse over time. CBO projects that Social Security’s deficits will average 10 percent over the next decade and then exceed 20 percent by 2030 as more baby boomers retire.

FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE – Barack Obama VS Mitt Romney (Part 7)

Published on Oct 3, 2012 by

Barack Obama & Mitt Romney Full Presidential Debate

__________

October 12, 2012 – 6:09 am Categories: Current Events, President Obama, spending out of control | Post a comment

The real truth about the financial condition of Social Security can be seen on the www.thedailyhatch.org

Uploaded by on Jan 8, 2009

Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security

If you want to know the real truth about the financial condition of Social Security then check out these links below:

Ark Times reader says Social Security is not Ponzi Scheme

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme but Blake who is a blogger said I was off base. Ark Times reader says Social Security is not Ponzi Scheme Social Security Disaster Walter E. Williams Columnist, Townhall.com Politicians who are principled enough to point out the fraud of Social Security, referring to it as a lie and […]

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that needs to be reformed

We got to do something soon about Social Security. The Case for Social Security Personal Accounts Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely caused by demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record […]

Senator Obama’s ideas on Social Security

Senator Obama’s Social Security Tax Plan Uploaded by afq2007 on Jul 23, 2008 In addition to several other tax increases, Senator Barack Obama wants to increase the Social Security payroll tax burden by imposing the tax on income above $250,000. This would be a sharp departure from current law, which only requires that the tax […]

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (part 13)

Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts Uploaded by afq2007 on Jan 10, 2011 There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely thanks to demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record amounts of tax in exchange for comparatively meager benefits. This […]

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about saving Social Security:Study released May 10, 2011 (Part 7)

“Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation, May 10, 2011 by  Stuart Butler, Ph.D. , Alison Acosta Fraser and William Beach is one of the finest papers I have ever read. Over the next few days I will post portions of this paper, but […]

Only difference between Ponzi scheme and Social Security is you can say no to Ponzi Scheme jh2d

Is Social Security  a Ponzi Scheme? I just started a series on this subject. In this article below you will see where the name “Ponzi scheme” came from and if it should be applied to the Social Security System. Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! 9/14/2011 | Email John Stossel | Columnist’s Archive Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! There, I […]

Social Security a Ponzi scheme?

Uploaded by LibertyPen on Jan 8, 2009 Professor Williams explains what’s ahead for Social Security Dan Mitchell on Social Security I have said that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and sometimes you will hear someone in the public say the same thing. Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme by Michael D. Tanner Michael Tanner […]

Dan Mitchell on Social Security

 

 

October 12, 2012 – 4:34 am Categories: Cato Institute, President Obama, Social Security, spending out of control, Taxes | Post a comment

Tagged |

The whole industrialized world followed Reagan’s lead on taxes

The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory

Uploaded by on Jan 28, 2008

The Laffer Curve charts a relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. While the theory behind the Laffer Curve is widely accepted, the concept has become very controversial because politicians on both sides of the debate exaggerate. This video shows the middle ground between those who claim “all tax cuts pay for themselves” and those who claim tax policy has no impact on economic performance. This video, focusing on the theory of the Laffer Curve, is Part I of a three-part series. Part II reviews evidence of Laffer-Curve responses. Part III discusses how the revenue-estimating process in Washington can be improved. For more information please visit the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s web site: http://www.freedomandprosperity.org

___________

After reading Milton Friedman’s book “Free to Choose” in 1980, I had the opportunity in 1981 to hear Arthur Laffer speak about what great economic expansion we were about to have in the USA because of Reagan’s 25% across the board tax cuts on income taxes and sure enough he was right. In fact, our economy expanded so much that the world took notice. Basically from 1980 to 2007 we dropped our top income tax rate from 73% to 39% which is a decrease of 34% and the world saw what we did and followed along. The drop of the industrialized countries during this same time was 26% (from 68% to 42% on average).

Take a look below at this chart:

Table 42.2
Top Individual Income Tax Rates in the OECD (percent)
Change
Country 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 1980–2007
Australia 62 60 49 47 47 47 45 17
Austria 62 62 50 50 50 50 50 12
Belgium 76 76 58 61 60 53 53 24
Britain 83 60 40 40 40 40 40 43
Canada 64 57 49 49 48 44 44 20
Czech Rep. n.a. n.a. n.a. 43 32 32 32 11
Denmark 66 73 68 64 59 59 59 7
Finland 68 67 60 57 54 53 52 16
France 60 65 60 62 61 56 49 11
Germany 65 65 53 57 56 44 47 18
Greece 60 63 50 45 43 40 40 20
Hungary n.a. n.a. 50 44 40 38 36 14
Iceland 63 56 40 47 45 39 36 27
Ireland 60 65 58 48 42 42 41 19
Italy 72 81 66 67 51 44 44 28
Japan 75 70 65 65 50 50 50 25
Korea 89 65 64 48 44 39 39 50
Luxembourg 57 57 56 50 47 39 39 18
Mexico 55 55 40 35 40 30 28 27
Netherlands 72 72 60 60 52 52 52 20
New Zealand 62 66 33 33 39 39 39 23
Norway 75 64 51 42 48 40 40 35
Poland n.a. n.a. n.a. 45 40 40 40 5
Portugal 84 69 40 40 40 40 42 42
Slovakia n.a. n.a. n.a. 42 42 19 19 23
Spain 66 66 56 56 48 40 39 27
Sweden 87 80 65 50 55 56 56 32
Switzerland 38 40 38 37 36 34 34 4
Turkey 75 63 50 55 45 40 40 35
United States 73 55 38 43 43 39 39 34
Average 68 64 52 49 47 43 42 26
SOURCE: James Gwartney and Robert Lawson, Economic Freedom of the World (Vancouver: Fraser Institute,
2007), as updated to 2007 by the authors. Data includes the national and average subnational tax rates.
NOTE: n.a.  not applicable.

___________

I know that Max Brantley and many of his friends over the Arkansas Times like to say that the Reagan tax cuts increased the deficit but that clearly is not true.

Peter Sperry noted:

President Ronald Reagan’s record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2

In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.

HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

  • Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
  • As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
  • Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
  • The Laffer Curve, Part II: Reviewing the EvidenceThis video is second installment of a three-part series. Part I reviews theoretical relationship between tax rates, taxable income, and tax revenue. Part III discusses how the revenue-estimating process in Washington can be improved. For more information please visit the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s web site: http://www.freedomandprosperity.org.The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring

October 11, 2012 – 4:29 pm Categories: Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Taxes | Post a comment