Before I begin, I want to say that I love Ronald Reagan. He was the best President by far of the 1900's. Probably the best until you go back to Thomas Jefferson. He was indeed that good for this country. A great man. People will try and say he was this big spender etc. However all you need to know is the Democrats owned 2/3rds of the vote. He could only veto, but he could be over ridden. Same thing Mitt Romney had to deal with as a Governor. As a Governor, Reagan had the same situation to deal with.
Yesterday there was a conversation with a well meaning man. Its odd how when we place someone such as Ronald Reagan as a standard bearer for something like a conservative movement how things get lost. Its like JFK. What did he really do? He chickened out of the Bay of Pigs. He moved us out of Turkey to appease the Russians, so they would remove the Missiles in Cuba. There was no great stance he took. They knew he was weak when they met prior in a World Summit. That is when Russia decided to advance to begin with. Yet somehow Kennedy was remembered as great, with no accomplishments to speak of.
Well the person was Anti-Romney and came out and stated Romney was for the Brady Gun Bill. Another person stated that Ronald Reagan was too. Well that got shot down, no Ronald Reagan was never for that. Oh yeah?
Why I am for the Brady Bill
by Ronald Reagan (written in 1991)
"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that
we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30,
however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.
It
was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among
reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my
press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.
I was lucky. The
bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch
from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my
pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and
nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast
support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.
Jim Brady, my press
secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet
entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through
the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George
Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and
the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery
has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day
and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.
Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his
neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm
forced his retirement in November 1981.
Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.
Still,
four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special --
a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a
young man with a history of mental disturbance.
This nightmare
might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now --
the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.
Named for Jim Brady,
this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period
before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law
enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or
known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be
prohibited from buying the handguns.
My point is this. We place people on standards. Yet we do not closely and honestly look at the why people do and support things. Usually people have a good reason. Ronald Reagan gave you his reason and Mitt Romney would give you his too if you were so inclined to really want to know. President Reagan did not have a lobbyist twisting his arm to come to his conclusion. I am sure Mitt Romney does not either.
In the general election, Mitt Romney will not have any issues really with the Health Care of Massachusetts. If anyone looks into it, they find it was the brain child of the Heritage Foundation. A conservative group. They will also find that it an attempt to try and find a solution to a 484 Million dollar deficit in the state health care.
An attempt at a state level to insure the 8% that were uninsured that caused these big issues financially in the state. They will also find that the veto proof House and Senate of the state added some things to the Bill which Mitt Romney vetoed as he saw they were not good. In turn he was vetoed back. As of 2010, 68% of the state still likes what they have, imperfect as it is. Originally it was only 1% of the state budget and did not have any new taxes to pay for it. Two amendments were added the year after Mitt Romney left.
State mandates are constitutional, and were used by the founding fathers. It is called states rights. In this health care plan there is no attack on private heath care. It really should not even be an issue. If Obama Care were not an issue nationally, then this would not even be brought up. They are clearly two different birds altogether. Not even close. Yet to the misinformed, it is an issue. But one that with some intellectual honesty can be understood.
This nation was formed by men with a basic Christian approach. Many had a faith in God and many also had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ by faith. The problem with Mormonism is they totally portray Jesus as someone other than the Christian Jesus. The Christian Jesus is God and always was God. The Christian God was always God. That is not so with the Mormons. Their God was once a man. Their Jesus was conceived by their God and a Goddess. It gets really troubling, the more you read from the founders of their faith. It is in essence what Christians call a Bible based Cult.
This has nothing to do with the ability of Mitt Romney to Govern. It did not affect him one iota as a Governor. What he did as Governor was remarkable against a veto proof legislature. I find it sad that people think because he governed in a liberal state, he must be a liberal too. That's like saying if you live in a area where people are mostly liberal, then you must be also. Is that fair to you? It's not fair to you either. He has had a remarkable record in business and he had a very conservative record as a Governor.
Before I go any further, despite what I am going to share, I still believe Mitt Romney will beat Barrack Obama. Mitt has style, grace and is focused. He has much fire and saves it for the right time.
If you do not think Mitt is conservative, go look at his 844 vetoes. They are all conservative.
Worried about his choices for Supreme Court? One of the great conservative legal minds of all time, Robert Bork endorses him. Has no doubt he would nominate conservatives. As Governor he did not get that Chance.
Worried about Guns? The NRA endorses him and laws he worked on actually made it easier for good law abiding citizens to get them and harder for criminals.
Pro Life? Look at his vetoes. He fought hard for pro-life.
Illegal Immigration? He defunded sanctuary cities in his state and is for enforcing federal laws. He is against Amnesty. What more would you want?
Federal Mandates like Obama Care? He is against federal mandates and is for repealing Obama Care. He believes these issues must be decided on in a state to state basis.
Cap and trade? He is against it. He says it is a financial disaster and there is no ways to measure how much Man affects the climate.
Is he big Government? Well he cut 341 social programs to balance a state deficit with no new taxes. Cutting Programs is downsizing Government. He has a plan out there to cut 500 billion in spending right away and is looking into more. He wants an amendment that America can not deficit spend anymore.
He took his state in one term from 50th in unemployment to 11th. He brought in 111 new businesses and created laws to help those already in business. He has a 169 page plan to fix the American economy that works within the system we have in place. It has been lauded by economists.
Isn't he a career politician or a Washington Insider? No. he is a career businessman. Jim DeMint, known as Mr Conservative states that Mitt Romney is not an insider.
Jim DeMint also says Mitt Romney is a doer and not a talker. Isn't that what this country needs? listen to this one too.
I am a born again believer. I study Christian Apologetics. If Mitt Romney pushed Mormonism, I would not vote for him, even though he is far and away the most accomplished and most qualified ever to run for President of the United states. But Mitt Romneys faith is private to him and because of that I have no problem voting for him.
He is a very moral man. Great leader, great problem solver. Wonderful family man. I believe, extremely conservative. I think he would be a great person to sit down and talk to. Much to learn from him. He is the smartest man in this race and also humble.
But, the Mormon Faith will be a battlefield.Most Mormons sadly have no idea who the founders were and what they were really all about. Here are some links as to why. They will be used against him. He can not side step them without renouncing his personal faith. It will be tough. I know he will handle it with extreme grace.
Brigham Young comments about blacks
"You see some
classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely,
disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of
nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed
upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and
that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This
was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose
and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
"In
our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we
intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the
kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the
children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under
heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter
under the curse and those were known to be our religious views
concerning them." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).
"Shall
I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white
man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of
Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will
always be so." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110)
Can you say wow? Furthermore here are the issues with the Mormons and Christians:
These are things that will upset the Christian World. The Christian Jesus is not Lucifer's brother. The Christian Jesus was not married. The Christian Jesus was not born in Jerusalem. There are many things. If I can find them, Obama will. Obama has no real claim to any faith, although most of us believe he is a Muslim.
Then you have the contradictions between the Mormon doctrine and the book of Mormon:
The Book of Mormon vs. Mormon Doctrine
The Book of Mormon
Mormon Doctrine
There is only one God Mosiah 15:1,5; Alma 11:28; 2 Nephi 31:21
Mormonism teaches there are many gods. Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 5.
The Trinity is one God Alma 11:44; Mosiah 15:5; 2 Nephi 31:21
The Trinity is three separate gods. James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 35. 1985.
God is unchanging Mormon 9:9,19; Moroni 8:18; Alma 41:8; 3 Nephi 24:6
God is increasing in knowledge. Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 120.
God is spirit Alma 18:24,28; 22:9,11
God has the form of a man. Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3.
Eternal hell Jacob 3:11; 6:10; 2 Nephi 19:16; 28:21-23.
Hell is not eternal. James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 55.
Polygamy condemned Jacob 1:15; 2:23,24,27,31;3:5; Mosiah 11:2,4; Ether 10:5,7
Polygamy was taught and practiced. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266.
So how does this work?
Then one of the favorites for sure is going to be the Racism. Here is a link on the History of Racism in the Mormon Church. Its not Pretty Click Here.
The list just goes on and on.
In the Bible a Prophet of God, in order to be recognized has to be 100% correct. The Main Prophet of the Mormon Church has some of the most ludicrous failed Prophecies ever. Ones that can never happen. Here is a doozy:
All Nations would be involved in the American Civil War - "Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; 2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. 3
For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern
States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the
nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon
other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and
then war shall be poured out upon all nations," (Doctrine and Covenants 87:1-3). See context
This is clearly another false prophecy since all nations did not get involved in the American Civil War.
To see all of it... click here. It is all documented from the writings of the Mormon Church. Its sad actually.
There are many nice and moral Mormon people. Many have no idea the real background and history of their belief system. The sad part is that whenever you point out things from their own founders writings they say they are being persecuted and that you are a liar and hater. The Mormon Church's founders hated Christianity. The quotes you can find from them is once again, easy to find, and in their own publications.
Look here:
Does Mormonism Attack Other Religions?
by Matt Slick
Mormons do not like it when their Church is labeled a cult by Christians. This bothers them and they want desperately to be accepted as Christian by the Christian community. The Mormon church
spends a great deal of time and money on public relations with the aim
of portraying a loving, family-oriented, non-condemning Christian
denomination. But Christians react to this and cite the great
differences in doctrine between Mormons and Christians and continue to
pronounce the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a
non-Christian cult.
The battle continues and Mormons try to claim
that they do not go around condemning other religions like
"anti-Mormons" do. They say they are forgiving, tolerant, good Christian
people who don't have anything against anyone. They claim they are
being more Christ-like.
Their desire for a good image is
understandable. But the question remains. Does the Mormon church condemn
other religious systems? The answer is definitely, "Yes." Let's look at
Mormon writers and see what they have said. Joseph Smith said . . .
(Regarding
Joseph Smith's alleged first vision where celestial personages appeared
to him.) . . .) "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know
which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No
sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to
speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light,
which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was
answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the
personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an
abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . ."
(Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 5-6).
"What
is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of
salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by
which he deceives the whole world," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 270.)
(In questions directed to Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. . .)
First -- "Do you believe the Bible?"
If we do, we are the only people under heaven that do, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do."
Third — "Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?" Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (Teachings, page 119.)
Brigham Young said. . .
"But
He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun.,
who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him
that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they
were all wrong," (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, 1855, p. 171).
John Taylor said . . .
"We
talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense....
Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade,
and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol;
it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better
engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth
century,"(Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, 1858, p. 167).
"Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, 1863, p. 127).
James Talmage said . . .
"A
self-suggesting interpretation of history indicates that there has been
a great departure from the way of salvation as laid down by the Savior,
a universal apostasy from the Church of Christ," (The Articles of Faith, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, p. 182).
Bruce McConkie said . . .
"With the loss of the gospel, the nations of the earth went into a moral eclipse called the Dark Ages," (Mormon Doctrine, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, Utah, p. 44).
Joseph Fielding Smith said . . .
"Again,
following the death of his apostles, apostasy once more set in, and
again the saving principles and ordinances of the gospel were changed to
suit the conveniences and notions of the people. Doctrines were
corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place
of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former
dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness," (Doctrines of Salvation, page 266).
The Book of Mormon says. . .
"And
he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is
the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil;
wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God
belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and
she is the whore of all the earth" (1 Nephi 14:10).
"And
when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother
of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth,
whose foundation is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father
shall commence. . ." (1 Nephi. 14:17).
The Doctrine and Covenants says . . .
"Verily,
verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness
the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my
face" (Doctrine and Covenants, 112:23).
When
the Mormon missionaries come to the door and do their "gospel"
presentation, they mention an apostasy and the need for a prophet, their
prophet, to restore the true Teachings of Jesus. Of course, these
‘restored' teachings are completely false.
Nevertheless, the
Mormon church clearly condemns other religious systems. Those Mormons
who complain about poor treatment should familiarize themselves with
their teachers' words.
Brigham Young said you must confess Joseph Smith as a prophet of God in order to be saved. "...and
he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph
Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of
God, but is Antichrist," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 312).
Brigham Young said his discourses are as good as Scripture. "I
say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they
are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).
Brigham Young said he had never given any counsel that was wrong.
"I
am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon,
for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to
this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church,
called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up
the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people
as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they
cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that
is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161).
Brigham Young said you are damned if you deny polygamy.
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269)
Brigham Young said you can't get to the highest heaven without Joseph Smith's consent.
"...no
man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial
kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289).
Brigham Young said that God the Father and Mary 'do it.'
"When
the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the
world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that
spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it," (Journal of Discourses,
vol. 4, p. 218). "The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the
births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook
of flesh and blood -- was begotten of his Father, as we were of our
fathers." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115). Note:
the late Bruce McConkie who was a member of the First Council of the
Seventy stated "There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was
begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of
events..." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742).
Brigham Young said that Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Spirit.
"I
have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal
more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for
ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).
Brigham Young taught that Adam was God.
"Now
hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and
sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into
it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.
He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the
Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and
spoken -- He is our Father, and our God, and the only God with whom we
have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non
professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50).
Mitt Romney has my vote. He is a great man and a great leader. He is the right person for the job. It is unfortunate that he has been raised in this faith that to the outside world reads more like a comic book gone astray than a real belief system. That's why they call it a cult. He does not push this and it has not affected him in Governing, nor in the business world. Maybe Obama will not want to push these issues, but all the information is there to cause problems. Mitt is far and away the most accomplished and qualified to turn this mess around.
I found this interesting. President Bush inherited a Recession. Unemployment was at 7.1% when he took office. Then the 911 disaster. Yet he dug us out and had us at 4.5% unemployment until when? When the Democrats took over the House and Senate. That was the beginning of the downfall. Here is a good article.
As the Presidential campaign season begins, it is important
to reflect on President Obama accomplishments after his first two years.
Rather than rehash all his achievements and failures, a simple chart
can be more effective in telling the story. *In the chart above the monthly gains in jobs listed in the thousands the parentheses means minus for Obama. We have averaged losing over 128 thousand jobs nationally a month while he has been in office. In contrast we gained almost 60 thousand jobs a month in President Bush's Presidency.
Compared to President Bush, President Obama’s annual
budget deficit
is 7.5 percentage points worse on average. Under Obama, average monthly
unemployment is 4.1 percentage points higher than unemployment under
President Bush. Average monthly housing starts are 66% lower under
Obama. Average annual food stamp participation has increased 63% from
22.7 million to 37.0 million. In January 2001, when President Bush took
office, the monthly participation rate was 17.2 million. By January
2011, food stamp particpation reached a high of 44.2 million under
President Obama.
President Obama, the first American President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for “hope” rather than any substantive accomplishments, also added another conflict to the two he inherited from his predecessor.
Under President Obama, daily crude oil prices have been 41% higher on
average and the average weekly retail gasoline price has been 25%
higher than prices during the Bush administration.
Do you miss President Bush yet?
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Conservative activist Christine O’ Donnell appeared on Hannity (FOX News) last night to announce her endorsement of Mitt Romney: O’Donnell backs Romney
(CNN) – Christine O’Donnell, a tea party favorite who ran
an unsuccessful U.S. Senate bid in 2010, announced her support Tuesday
night for Mitt Romney, a GOP presidential candidate lacking fanfare
among the conservative grassroots movement.
“It is my hope that my endorsement of Gov. Mitt Romney will cause others to give him a second look,” she said in a statement.
The social conservative … said she was throwing her weight behind
Romney because she finds him trustworthy and as someone with “conviction
to do the right thing regardless of opposition.”
In an apparent knock against GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich,
O’Donnell praised Romney’s experience in the private sector and said the
nation needs a president who is not a “Washington insider” or “who
hasn’t been playing the game for the last three decades.”
…O’Donnell pointed to his [Romney's] support for her and other
candidates who rode the 2010 tea party wave, including Florida Sen.
Marco Rubio and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
Note: I appreciated hearing O’Donnell mention Romney’s support
for her and others running for office a little over a year ago. No one
in the current line up of GOP hopefuls worked harder than Governor
Romney to support conservative candidates in the months leading up to
the 2010 mid-term elections. He was often a lone, untiring figure
criss-crossing the country, pulling his suitcase through airports to
ride coach, racking up miles and wearing out shoe leather to get to
another rally. His Free and Strong America PAC donated thousands of
dollars in support of those who shared his conservative values and his
enthusiasm to take back congress was a great help to many. Romney’s statement:
“Christine has been a leader in the conservative movement for many years,” said Mitt Romney. “Christine
recognizes that excessive government threatens us now and threatens
future generations, and I am pleased to have her on my team.”
Announcing her support, Christine O’Donnell said, “For me, this
endorsement comes down to trust. I am endorsing Governor Romney because I
trust him to do the right thing. He has the strength of conviction to
do the right thing regardless of opposition. America needs a
president who is not a Washington Insider. America needs a president who
hasn’t been playing the game for the last three decades. America needs a
president who can turn our economy around, put Americans back to work,
and will lead with stability, integrity and the values that we hold
dear. I am confident Mitt Romney will be that president.”
(emphasis added) O’Donnell’s background:
Christine O’Donnell has been a leader in the
conservative movement for many years. O’Donnell has been an advocate for
various conservative causes and campaigns during this time. In 2010,
she was the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware.
With the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement
of Newt Gingrich as well as Gingrich’s rise in the polls, the former
speaker has the momentum in the race for the White House, but is this a
good thing?
Speaker Gingrich has many commendable points. He’s skilled at
crafting conservative policy proposals and he is an accomplished debater
and proponent of conservative ideas. Gingrich also deserves credit for
working with President Clinton to pass welfare reform, and some credit
for the balanced budgets that existed prior to 9/11. Conservatives
remember Gingrich fondly for leading the GOP to victory with the Contract with America.
However, things did not go so well once Gingrich was in office. His
troubled tenure from 1995-99 (which he at one point compared to being prime minister) as well as his post-speakership career raise several red flags that conservatives would be wise to consider:
1) Big Spending and Earmarks:
While Gingrich was speaker, Congress and the
president balanced the budget. This did not come about through hard
choices, but rather through a booming economy. As the information age
dawned and the dotcom boom began, government coffers surged with
revenues.
As part of the balanced budget agreement, Congress put in place
spending caps. With the surge of revenue, Gingrich and Senate Majority
Leader Trent Lott decided to break the spending caps
that had been put in place in the balanced budget agreement and
increased federal spending. This practice was continued under Gingrich’s
successor, Dennis Hastert. The predictable result of the Republican
Congress’ profligacy on spending was that once the dotcom bubble burst
and economic growth slowed, the only way that Congress could afford to
continue the increases they’d made in the good years of the economy was
to run up deficits.
Gingrich’s speakership was dealt a telling blow as a result of his ineptness in negotiating the FY1999 budget
which was passed a month before the 1998 elections and increased
spending without delivering any major tax reductions. Then-Rep. Mike
Castle (R-DE) said voters complained to him that nobody read the bill
and “the president (Clinton) got virtually everything he wanted.”
One part of Gingrich’s legacy that remained long after he left was the expanded role of earmarks
in congressional politics. Gingrich doubled the number of earmarks in
Congress and his office sent out memos encouraging the use of earmarks
for protecting vulnerable members of Congress. The number of earmarks would eventually increase to 14,000 per year
and would lead to the end of the Republican majority. While the
greatest excesses did not occur during Gingrich’s speakership, the first
steps toward the Republican train wreck of 2006 were taken during
Gingrich’s tenure.
2) Dysfunctional Leadership and Failed Communicator:
If conservatives want lasting victories, they need to survive
politically and communicate to the public well. During the government
shutdown in 1995-96, Gingrich and the House Republicans failed to
formulate an effective response to the Democratic message. Gingrich’s inexplicable statement
that President Clinton failed to give him proper seating on Air Force
One to a state funeral for Yitzhak Rabin only made the problems worse.
Gingrich’s approval rating shrunk to a toxic 20% in the polls as a result of this failure.
Gingrich’s speakership led to a historic lack of confidence from
Republican leaders and the rank and file. In 1997, nine Republican
members of the House refused to support Gingrich’s re-election to the speakership and the GOP leadership rallied barely enough votes to keep Gingrich in office. In July of that year, Gingrich faced a coup from his top lieutenants that collapsed due to incompetence. After the 1998 elections, Gingrich was forced to step aside.
3) Washington Insider:
Gingrich does not shy away from being a Washington insider.
He responded to criticism of his work for Freddie Mac and the
Washington insider label by stating that we need to elect someone who
knows how Washington works in order to change Washington.
Conservatives have reason to be wary of this idea for a number of
reasons, not the least of which is Gingrich’s flawed record as speaker,
suggesting that his success at changing Washington has been slipshod at
best, and that his career tendency has been to go along rather than
address tough issues when called for.
In an October debate, while Gingrich lauded Herman Cain for proposing his 9-9-9 tax plan, Gingrich cautioned,
“Change on this scale takes years to think through if you’re going to
do it right.” It’s worth noting that sixteen years ago, Gingrich
appointed Cain to Jack Kemp’s tax commission
and since then several other tax reform commissions have been
appointed. How many more years do we need to “think through” tax reform
until we actually do something significant? It is standard Washington
tactics to kick big issues down the road for others to deal with, and
Gingrich is too big a part of that system to change it.
4) Betraying Conservatives on Key Issues:
Newt Gingrich threw himself into backing liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava while conservatives and tea party groups were rallying around Conservative Doug Hoffman. Gingrich scolded conservative activists for backing Hoffman. Hoffman, for his part, is forgiving of the whole thing
and urges Republicans not to hold Gingrich’s action against him. While
this is kind of Mr. Hoffman, conservatives would do well to ignore the
advice because Gingrich’s belligerent defense of Scozzafava is part of a
larger pattern of key betrayals of conservative interests.
While Gingrich was speaker, he and the NRCC were notorious for
backing liberal Republicans over conservatives. For example, in 1997,
Gingrich recruited
liberal state Assemblyman Brook Firestone and supported him over
conservative Tom Bordonaro in a special congressional election. Primary
voters in the district rejected Firestone as well as Gingrich and
company’s attempts to play kingmaker.
In addition to endorsements for liberal Republicans, Gingrich has
been more than willing to endorse liberal causes. Among examples of this
are the famous ad
of him sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi calling for government
action to address climate change and his letter in support of Bush’s immigration reform,
which many conservatives labeled amnesty. When Gingrich opposes
conservatives, he tends to do it in a very dramatic way that’s very
belligerent to conservatives who disagree with him.
Conservatives betting on Gingrich have to hope that something has
changed Gingrich over the past thirteen years that will transform him
into someone who can not only talk about conservative ideas, but can
implement conservative solutions. Given the totality of the Gingrich
record, this is a bad bet.
Adam Graham is a contributor at Race42012.com and host of the Truth and Hope Report podcast. His personal site is Adam's Blog. He is author of novel, "Tales of the Dim Knight," from Splashdown Boo
I want to believe there are good guys in the outcry in America to restore us to constitutional rationale and what our country was founded on. But it seems that people that we once thought were with us in this quest, really are not with us after all. This is part of my reason for being quiet. Facts and reasoning seem to go out the window, and misconceptions and half truths seem to reign in the midst of a desperate time.
I have not watched all of the GOP debates. I have not felt the need to. I do my research on people. The past actions of people pretty much tell us who they are, instead of the words that they speak in choreographed so called debates.
I have long listened to Mark Levin articulate how Ronald Reagan in his short comings as a Governor and President was a result of going up against a Democrat led Congress and Senate in both positions. He is right in this. Many things, Reagan had no control of the outcome. Spending doubled, many issues that just in today's world would paint Ronald Reagan in a poor light amongst conservatives.
But, I know a little about how the system works. That is why I know how a Governor or President can be limited in what they can do, and ultimately have to sign things they did not want to sign. Common sense and honesty should tell you things like this. But unfortunately people are quick to point fingers, and slow to look at the real facts.
Rush Limbaugh has become just as bad. He has made rash statements that easily are disproven. Since when should he dictate who is conservative and who is not? I always believed that real conservatives delved in actual truth.
What we need is a real leader. No scandals, moral and a proven problem solver.
Mark Levin for some reason endorsed Sarah Palin. Did you see her on "The View"? Whenever someone challenges her, she is not strong, or confident. her experience was in a GOP friendly state, that ran just as good before her...and after her. She is indecisive, dragging out her decision on whether to run or not for several months longer than she said she would. No thank you on many levels.
Mark Levin once stated, now Rick Perry...there is someone I can vote for. Well Mark, since you said that, we have watched him stumble all over himself. I am still waiting to see one area where Rick Perry is conservative. It doesn't exist.
Then we have to hear about Herman Cain. Folks it just gets more embarrassing. I am still on the floor laughing about him wanting Henry Kissinger, who was a joke the first time as his secretary of state. His 999 plan that is full of holes and needs a IRS repeal of the 16th amendment to even take place. So its a bad plan. He even favors minorities in it, which goes a long with his love of the Affirmative Action laws. He is totally clueless on foreign affairs and how the constitution works. He is a horrible thought.
Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House .However he was fined $300,000.00 for ethics violations. He is currently being charged with bribery. He has been extreme in his lies about Mitt Romneys Record. He also is so wrong as he speaks of Amnesty for illegals. He is a smart man, but he is a philosopher and not a problem solver. He is for National Mandates. Do you want that? Or do you want it constitutional where things are dealt with on a state level? No thank You. Cabinet position... yes.
So what do conservatives want?
I want:
ObamaCare overturned Romney wants that and will give 50 waivers until it is repealed
Cap and Trade Done Away with: Romney is against Cap and Trade and calls it a disaster
Illegal Alien laws enforced: Romney de-funded sanctuary cities as Governor and is very strong on immigration
Economy fixed: Mitt took his state from 50th in unemployment to 11th in one 4 year term. These were real jobs and not Government jobs. he brought in 111 new businesses. He has a 169 page detailed plan of how to fix the present economy.
Smaller Government: Mitt cut 341 Government programs in balancing a 3 Billion a year state deficit
Balance the Budget: He did that as I mentioned above, and has a plan to so far cut out 500 million of the 1.6 trillion deficit. He wants a law in place that you can not deficit spend
*There is no candidate as consistant, as conservative and as accomplished and qualified as Mitt Romney. Everybody has words, but he has 844 vetoes where he stood on conservative values.
Take the time to look. You will see just how conservative Mitt Romney is and how conservatively he governed. He is the only candidate that makes sense.
Unfortunately, people usually have an unbalanced concept of who really pays the taxes in America. Who really carries the load for the social programs such as welfare and medicaid etc.
I have often heard people state, well I pay into the system, therefore I am entitled to what is mine. But who really is paying for it? Quite frankly is it fair?
Yes, income in America is skewed
toward the rich. But taxes are skewed far, far more. The top 5 percent
pay well over half the income taxes. STEPHEN MOORE has the numbers.
1. Are income taxes fair?
That depends on who is offering the opinion. Democratic candidates
for president certainly don’t think so. John Edwards has said, “It’s
time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of
whack.” Hillary Clinton laments that “middle-class and working families
are paying a much higher percentage of their income [in taxes].” Over
the past seven years, however, Americans in general think taxes have
become more fair, not less. The Gallup Organization found in an
April poll that 60 percent of respondents believe the income taxes that
they themselves pay are fair, compared
with 37 percent who believe the taxes they pay are unfair. In 1997, the
figures were 51 percent fair and 43 percent unfair.
2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent
of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent
pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below
the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3
percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and
don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
3. But didn’t the Bush tax cuts favor the rich? The New York Times reported recently that the average family in
America with an income of $10 million or more received a
half-million-dollar tax cut, while the middle class got crumbs (less
than $100 shaved off their tax bill). If we examine the taxes paid in a
static world—that is, if we assume that there was no change in behavior
and economic performance as a result of the tax code—then these numbers
are meaningful. Most of the tax cuts went to the super wealthy. But Americans did respond to the tax cuts. There was more
investment, more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market. When
we compare the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after
the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion
of income taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100
billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of
tax filers who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased
from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total
taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in
two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.
4. But haven’t the tax cuts put more of the burden on the backs of the middle class and the poor?
No. I examined the Treasury Department analysis of how much the rich
would have paid without the Bush tax cuts and how much they actually did
pay. The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less,
after the Bush investment tax cuts. For example, the Treasury’s estimate
was that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if
the Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid
37 percent.
Similarly, the share of the top 10 percent of earners was estimated at
63 percent without the cuts; they actually paid 68 percent.
5. What has happened to tax rates in America over the last several decades? They’ve fallen. In the early 1960s, the highest marginal income tax
rate was a stunning 91 percent. That top rate fell to 70 percent after
the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and remained there until 1981. Then Ronald
Reagan slashed it to 50 percent and ultimately to 28 percent after the
1986 Tax Reform Act. Although the federal tax rate fell by more than
half, total tax receipts in the 1980s doubled from $517 billion in 1981
to $1,030 billion in 1990. The top tax rate rose slightly under George
H. W. Bush and then moved to 39.6 percent under Bill Clinton. But under
George W. Bush it fell again to 35 percent. So what’s striking is that,
even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century,
taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the
tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5
percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes.
Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a
whopping 57 percent.
6. What is the economic logic behind these lower tax rates? As legend has it, the famous “Laffer Curve” was first drawn by
economist Arthur Laffer in 1974 on a cocktail napkin at a small dinner
meeting attended by the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley
and such high-powered policymakers as Richard Cheney and Donald
Rumsfeld. Laffer showed how two different rates—one high and one
low—could produce the same revenues, since the higher rate would
discourage work and investment. The Laffer Curve helped launch
Reaganomics here at home and ignited a frenzy of tax cutting around the
globe that continues to this day. It’s also one of the simplest concepts
in economics: lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment,
and risk-taking will spur more of these activities and will often
produce more tax revenue rather than less. Since the Reagan tax cuts,
the United States has created some 40 million new jobs—more than all of
Europe and Japan combined.
7. Are lower tax rates responsible for the big budget deficits of recent decades?
There is no correlation between tax rates and deficits in recent U.S.
history. The spike in the federal deficit in the 1980s was caused by
massive spending increases. The Congressional Budget Office reports that, since the 2003 tax
cuts, federal revenues have grown by $745 billion—the largest real
increase in history over such a short time period. Individual and
corporate income tax receipts have jumped by 30 percent in the two years
since the tax cuts.
8. Do the rich pay more taxes because they are earning more of the income in America?
Yes. There’s no doubt that the share of total income earned by the
wealthy has increased steadily over the past 25 years. Since 1980, the
share of income earned by the richest 1 percent has more than doubled,
from 9 percent to 19 percent. The share of the income going to the
poorest income quintile has declined. Income disparities, in absolute
dollars, have grown substantially. What is significant is that for the top 5 percent and 10 percent of
earners, the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned has risen.
For example, in 1980, the top 10 percent earned 32 percent of the income
and paid 44 percent of the taxes—a ratio of 1.4. In 2004, this group
earned more of the income (44 percent) but paid a lot more of the taxes
(68 percent)—a ratio of 1.6. In other words, progressivity—in terms of
share of total taxes paid—has risen. On the other hand, for the top 1
percent of earners, progressivity has declined from a ratio of 2.2 in
1980 to 1.9 in 2004.
9. Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?
No. If Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and
moved to France, income distribution in America would temporarily appear
more equitable, even though no one would be better off. Median family
income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle
class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of
income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer.
The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000
(after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle
class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a
family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30
years ago. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this has been a “rising tide”
expansion, with most (though not all) boats lifted.
10. Does the tax distribution look a lot different if we factor in other federal taxes, such as the payroll tax?
It’s true that the distribution of taxes is somewhat more equally
divided when payroll taxes are accounted for—but the change is
surprisingly small. Payroll taxes of 15 percent are charged on the first
dollar of income earned by a worker, and most of the tax is capped at
an income of just below $100,000. The Tax Policy Center, run by the
Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, recently studied payroll
and income taxes paid by each income group. The richest 1 percent pay
27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent,
and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent. One reason that the
disparity in tax shares is so large is that Americans in the bottom
quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15
percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a
fairly efficient poverty-abatement program.
11. How do tax rates in the United States compare with tax rates abroad?
Overall, taxes are between 10 percent and 20 percent lower in the
United States than they are in most other industrial nations. This gives
America a competitive edge in world markets. But America’s lead in low
tax rates is shrinking. For example, the United States now has the
second-highest corporate income tax in the developed world, after Japan.
Our personal income tax rate is still low by historical standards. But
in recent years many European and Pacific Rim nations have been slashing
income taxes—there are now ten Eastern European nations with flat-tax
rates between 12 percent and 25 percent—while the political pressure in
Washington, D.C., is to raise them.
12. Do
tax cuts on investment income, such as George W. Bush’s reductions in
tax rates on capital gains and dividends, primarily benefit wealthy
stock owners?
The New York Times reported that America’s millionaires raked in 43
percent of the investment tax cut benefits in 2003. It’s true that lower
tax rates have been a huge boon to shareholders—but most of them are
not rich. The latest polls show that 52 percent of Americans own stock
and thus benefit directly from lower capital gains and dividend taxes.
Reduced tax rates on dividends also triggered a huge jump in the number
of companies paying out dividends. As the National Bureau of Economic
Research put it, “The surge in regular dividend payments after the 2003
reform is unprecedented in recent years.” Dividend income is up nearly
50 percent since the 2003 tax cut.
The same phenomenon occurred with the capital gains tax, which is
essentially a voluntary tax because asset owners can avoid it by simply
holding onto their stock, home, or business. This “lock-in” effect, as
it is called, can be economically inefficient, since owners have a tax
incentive to keep poor investments, rather than drawing out the cash and
putting it into assets that are more productive. When the capital gains
tax is cut, people unlock their assets and reinvest in other
enterprises. The 1997 tax reform, passed under President Clinton, reduced the
capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent, and taxable
capital gains nearly doubled over the next three years. The 2003 reform
brought the rate down to 15 percent, and between 2002 and 2005 there was
a 154 percent increase in capital gains reported as income. This explosion in realized gains cannot be explained only by the rise
in the stock market, which averaged just 13 percent annually between
2003 and 2005. Capital gains tax receipts also far outpaced the revenues
that the government’s static models predicted. Between 2003 and 2007,
actual tax receipts exceeded expectations by $207 billion.
Stephen Moore is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial board and a contributor
to CNBC TV. He was the founder of the Club for Growth and has served as
a fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute and the Heritage
Foundation. His latest book is “Bullish on Bush: How George Bush’s
Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger” (Madison Books).
Stephen Moore is considered an economic expert. I also wish to share some thoughts from Mark Tice, who is a Concerned American.
I
examined the Treasury Department analysis of how much the rich would
have paid without the Bush tax cuts and how much they actually did pay.
The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less, after
the Bush investment tax cuts. For example, the Treasury’s estimate was
that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if the
Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid 37
percent. Similarly, the share of the top 10 percent of earners was
estimated at 63 percent without the cuts; they actually paid 68 percent.
The latest data show that a
big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small
group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the
population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the
income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the
bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13
percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are
proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for
Social Security and Medicare. -Mark Tice
The Socialist Democratic Party is always trying to create class warfare. It takes people away from what they really are up to. The Rich are not the enemy of the poor. Capitalism is the best thing going. Yes, Crony Capitalism is a bad thing, but it is not the rule thank goodness, but rather the exception to the rule. Any reasonable person should think of their own personal responsibilities of their own lives, However we get taught the foolishness of entitlement, coupled with the concept of taking from the producers in life and giving to everyone else. That has never been a good concept and it just never works. Look at the Democratic States in America. They are all failing and in massive debt. Look at Europe. Its not pretty and all socialistic countries world wide are economically unstable. Socialism just does not work.
