I’ve got a quick rant. I was listening to NPR, and they were doing one of their pro-interviewee interviews of this lady who was running a book store at the Wall Street Occupation.

At the end, the interviewer lets the Occupation librarian explain her philosophical thoughts. She explained that she doesn’t like the way our country treats our weakest members, minorities, etc. Not unreasonable, right? Then she goes on to explain that her biggest issue, the thing she think is the priority, is to transition to a carbon neutral  society, and that the reason we aren’t is because the ‘oil companies’ are preventing it. lol

It’s this kind of utterly ignorant thinking that makes my teeth itch. Earlier in the interview she was saying that the library represents the Occupation movement’s purpose of educating people and educating themselves. lol I guess there aren’t any math books in that library, or books on business or technology.

So, I have some questions about this:

1.       Which “oil companies” is she talking about?

2.       If these oil companies are humans, residents of earth, and they know of a technology that could replace oil – Why do they stick with earning peanuts selling oil??? 

3.       The idea that there’s a secret technology the oil companies are hiding, for several decades has been a favorite random claim of idiots who think making erroneous statements sounds smart. Assuming they’re wrong, we’re left with non-secret non-carbon-releasing energy technology. In that case, remembering that you’re already concerned about how our weak members and minorities are treated, how are poor people going to eat and not freeze to death????

I just made another report to Attackwatch.com:

Here’s an unfair attack on Obama’s jobs plan. It lists all these tax rates which conflicted with his assertion that the rich pay less than the poor in taxes, obviously a Conservative trick.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

–Better arguments for Professor Dove’s article, “Buy Ameri-mexi-nadian”–

1. The best thing to do for the economy is to buy what you think is the best value. If an American company isn’t building the car you want, or if the American car of your type – say a Focus – costs $50 more a month than its foreign competition, what else will you do? Lower your personal standard of living in an effort to ‘patriotically’ support a corporation? Ford doesn’t do that. Neither does GM or Chrysler. They buy their shit where ever it’s cheapest – usually foreign. And they move production to where ever it’s cheapest whenever they have the chance. Do you think a new factory will ever be built in UAW territory again???

2. Foreign companies have low labor costs, resulting in higher value cars. American companies have some of the highest labor costs. Although the American workers are more productive than their foreign competition – those gains are nullified by their incredibly high – low skill wage. Unions in the US have functioned like a power syndicate taxing the auto companies – resulting in far-above market wages for their members. An auto worker is doing basic manual labor for what is equivalent to $50 an hour while his non-union neighbor is willing to do the job for $15 or $20, even less in this economy. If the auto companies can get a reasonable hold on their labor costs – they’ll add more value tot heir cars and be more competitive.

3. Besides the history of bad quality, US car companies also have a history of bad service – and that’s a recent history. It’s been over a decade since most foreign car companies have offered the 100,000 mile power train warranty.  Domestic manufacturers still only offer the 30,000 mile with an expensive extension – and often don’t cover problems when they do occur during the 30k miles. That kind of thing really sticks in a person’s craw.

4. US companies have unappealing entry-level options - still. Each US manufacturer has it’s small economy car, the type first-time car buyers often get. But they don’t offer the value of other models – like the Honda Civic. And how could they offer value? US auto companies loose money on the little cars, and only keep them so they can compete in the first-time buyer market. That reason for having a first-rate high-value first-time-buyer car is to start a tradition with young people. If a person buys a Honda and has a great experience, they are likely to buy a Honda the next time around. And foreign manufacturers like Honda excel in this market because all they make are small cars and they do it profitably – that’s where their energy is focused.

5. We no longer need large scale manufacturing for national security. The Great War was certainly the war to end all wars. Who, after enduring the destruction and loss of life of that great global conflict, could ever wage large-scale war again? Our modern weapons simply make it too horrific.

[edit: 1948] Now that we have the bomb, large scale war is something we’ll only experience in history books. No one will wage large scale war because it would eventually end in nuclear warfare, which would be catastrophic and in no one’s interest.

[edit: 1953] Oh shit, we might need that heavy production, or some counter to the Soviet mechanized forces, which are growing at a rate that will soon threaten all of Western Europe with an unstoppable swooping invasion.

[edit: 2003] Large scale warfare is a thing of the past. Modern wars are small, requiring light and fast military forces and air power. Heavy equipment is obsolete when a hand full of Ranger teams with eye’s in the sky and bombs from heaven can do in a month what the Soviet Army couldn’t accomplish in 7 years – or when such a modest force can topple a military regime over night, such as Sadam’s.

[edit: 2009] Modern wars require many troops, but only a fraction of them are combat focused, because the main goal is protecting and appeasing the civilians of the area. Domestic production of military equipment can be small because we don’t loose it – we just wear it out. Sudden large-scale war production is as unnecessary as fighter planes and manned air power.:-)

I recently traversed to the Texas/Mexico border to see what the unprotected portions of our southern border actually look like in person.  It’s one thing to see it on the news but another to stand on it.  The section of the border I explored was in Big Bend National Park.  It’s the second most southern point of Tx.  Big Bend is about 9 and a half hours south west of Waco, 11 hours south west of Dallas, and 8 hours west of San Antonio.  So it’s in the middle of no where.  The landscape is very arid with mesas and mountains.  It is high desert through most of the park as the altitude of some peaks can surpass 7000 feet.  Who knew Tx had mountains?  It looks a lot like Arizona New Mexico, and southern Utah.

View Larger Map
The drive to Big Bend from Dallas is fairly flat until you reach the foothills around Austin.  At that point there are pleasant rolling hills for mile and miles.  Getting closer to Big Bend, as you turn southwest after Austin, the land begins to open up into endless pastures and distant mesas.  It’s quite beautiful.  There are numerous classic Tx ranches in these spaces with mostly cattle.  There are also a large number of people with herds of goats.  Goats seem pretty popular down there.  And there is a speckling of lamas and ostriches.  I hear ostriches are worth a lot of money.  On top of the large mesas far out in the distance are endless rows of looming wind mills.  They are enormous.  They are a force to be reckoned with even for the mesas themselves, who must feel at least a little jealous over their size and prominence.  This landscape goes on for hours until about 2 hours from Big Bend, where the rolling hills and mesas begin to multiply in size.  Mile after mile the land rises up around you.  Just outside outside of the park, you reach a border patrol check point where everyone must stop, at east when leaving the park.  I didn’t reach this point until about 2 in the morning on the way their and did not even realize their was a check point.  So apparently, you don’t get stopped driving in to the park.  Patrol guards question you and then let you through.  I had no issues passing through the check point.  It was a smooth seamless process.  Once reaching the park, their is still about an hour or more drive through the park to get to a campground.

The landscape is gorgeous in Big Bend.  Their are sizable peaks, towering mesas, and vast valleys.  It’s a scene straight from or at least very similar to Arizona or Utah.  The land is barren, dry, and apparently lifeless, except for the short shrubs and bushes that blanket the ground with a spotty distribution.  The temperature was very pleasant, in the 80′s and 90′s during the day and 60′s and 70′s at night.  The pleasant temps were due to the high altitude, but they do get very hot during may and june.  As soon as you come down from these altitudes surround the park, the temps shoot up and become oppressive.  The high park is a bit of an oasis from the hot sun, which makes hiking and exploring very comfortable.

Accommodations at the park are mainly for campers.  There is one lodge but it’s pricey, about $120 a night.  Campgrounds for tents are only $14 a night, and the views from Chios Basin camp ground are unparalleled.  Waking up to see your camp surrounded 360˚ by the Chios mountains is breathtaking.  These peaks surpass 7000 feet and provide some astounding scenic views, if you can hike to them.  The south rim of the Chios mountains has perhaps the best views in the park, overlooking a vast valley, the Rio Grande river, and other mountain ranges and mesas that extend into Mexico.  The park has many other great sites as well, like Santa Elena Canyon and endless back country mesas and mountains available for exploration.

The park is pretty much in the middle of no where.  There are a couple very small towns on it’s edges, but they are all at least 45 minutes or more away, and there is not much to them.  Maybe a couple places to eat and a gift shop.  And this is on the American side.  On the Mexican side, there are fewer towns and they are less developed.  Border crossings at these towns is highly restricted now, whereas it was more lenient in the past and visitors could cross with relative ease.

Mother nature is most brutal along this stretch of border.  When you stand at the Rio Grande River, which is the only visible sign marking the border, can imagine very easily the treachery of being exposed in this land scape for any extended period of time.  Without proper supplies, you would die after a couple days out here.  There are no safety net cities to flee to for basic needs.  The law of nature rules here with an iron fist.  Even with the proper supplies, you would not last very long.  You can only carry so much, and it wouldn’t be enough to trek the many miles from a small town in Mexico to one on the US side.

Crossing the border in Big Bend is the easy part.  I explored the border on the Rio Grande at a point called Hot Springs.  Tourists venture to this locale to soak in a natural hot spring that remains about 105˚.  Click on this map and check it out.  It’s a fairly remote area, with only Rio Grande Village nearby to the east, which is literally a small village with a handful of shacks on the Mexican side and some dusty campground sites on the US.  Outside of this, there is nothing for as far as you can see.  Not an ideal place to chart an illegal border crossing to.

View Larger Map
The whole spot feels very shady.  In the Hot Springs parking lot, there are signs warning about vehicle break-ins and theft.  Then as you trek the short hike to the Rio Grande river, there are abandoned stone buildings and shacks.  along the hike signs warn tourists not to buy souvenirs from illegals, showing pictures of trinkets you may see down at the river.  The signs site the federal fines and prison time for such actions.  Once you reach the river, sure enough, there are several spots where someone has left some trinkets for sale and a jar to put your money in.  One visitor, who had visited the park his whole life, explained there were a few dwellings across the river and the kids tried to sell their hand-made crafts here.  I was just amazed anyone could live out here.  They must have been from Rio Grande Village to the east.  It is only a moderate hike from the village to the Hot Spring area.

The Rio Grande is actually quite docile when water levels are normal or low.  I waded into the river to cool down while exploring.  The water is warm and murky with desert sand.  The bottom is sandy with rocks and the depth relatively shallow.  I ventured quite a ways out into the river and it never seemed to go past my waist.  The current is pretty strong, but not dangerously so.  There were several other people wading, but they left after a short time.  There seemed to be a correlation between me showing up and stripping to my speedo and their departing.  I bet they thought I was European.  Once they were gone, it was just me and my traveling companion, who was also in horror over the speedo.

There were no apparent eyes watching or surveillance of any kind.  The Barnum & Bailey Circus could have crossed and no one would ever have known.  The only thing protecting the border from illegal crossings was tyrannical mother nature who’s either an enemy or an ally depending on which side your on.  The border stretches on for hundreds of miles like this in Texas.  There is just no way anyone could hike to the border, cross, and then hike to a town to recuperate before migrating further inland to a major city.  The human body could not surmount such obstacles.  Exposure to the elements is the very reason there are so many border crossing deaths, sadly, in Arizona.  It’s that fierce down here on the southern border.  Life and limb hang in the balance for anyone attempting such a feet on foot, no pun intended.  Mother nature serves as the ultimate first line of defense for foreigners crossing over illegally.  Texas’ southern border is even more remote then Arizona’s however.  So the rate of illegal border crossings is much lower in this area of TX.

Hiking to the south rim of the Chios Mountains gives you even more perspective on what lies ahead for anyone trying to cross into the US illegally from Mexico.  The south rim stands at an elevation over 6000 feet and boasts a 2500 foot drop to the desert floor.  The view spans out over the southern US/Mexico border.  The hike to get to the rim is about 6 miles, one way, and 4500 vertical feet.  And if you live at sea level like I do, you definitely feel this altitude and breath a little more heavily.  Standing at the rim is awe inspiring.  The view is spectacular.  The land stretches out before you for hundreds of miles with not a single sign of life or development.  Just mountains, desert, mesas, and shrubs.  Staring at the border from this perspective makes it more clear that no one would have a chance in hell of hiking from some distant city through this barren landscape to cross the border into the US.  It is just not possible.  Even an expert in survival would likely not make the journey.  Mother nature, while beautiful and epic here, is deadly and cruel.  The easy border crossing here is not worth the peril of reaching it.

While much of our border is desolate like in southern Texas, much of the border is not, like in Arizona and california.  Mother nature is not enough to head off illegal border crossings here.  Though many die from the elements here attempting to cross, Mother nature is just not perilous enough to ward off or deter the most desperate.  Mother nature needs some aide in these areas.  Like a multiple layered border fence, which was begun but stopped.  A more streamlined process for becoming a citizen may help, as currently, it takes years and thousands of dollars.  The temporary worker card system seemed to be beneficial for keeping track of those that were willing to go through a formal process to work in the US.  An increased military or guard presence is needed, which is partially underway.  The systems in place need to be more efficient and the border needs to present more of a deterrence.  Our border must be a force to be reckoned with in vulnerable areas, just like Mother nature has been along so much of the border.

Indeed, people got flustered, “Those drones do kill families all the time.” So I know Bush would have been scorned by the self righteous boohoo anti-war wanks.

The joke it’s self wasn’t the problem. It’s how Obama tells jokes that makes them weird.  He starts smirking before he even tells it, anticipating all his little podium bunnies will chuckle along regardless. And he keeps smirking – with a cadence making it obvious he’s attempting a joke – as people patiently wait for him to stumble it out.

That joke was similar to Brown’s joke about his daughters. It embarrassed everyone. But Obama went on to add something about the most controversial weapon in the arsenal – which the President actually does kill people with. If the Iraqi invasion was illegal drone strikes are assassinations.

The poor are already paying that sales tax. It’s just hidden from them right now in the form of all kinds of corporate and income taxes passed on from producers of goods and services. The only difference under the fair tax is that you would KNOW how much you’re paying. And the majority would be less inclined to allow elected officials to make expensive promises and billing a minority.

It would be correct to assume the tax burden would be spread out equally based on use of services, so the more services you use the more taxes you pay. But for people below the poverty line, the truly needy, there would be a tax credit equal to their tax burden. So essentially the poor would continue to not pay taxes, but if they do find a path to prosperity, they won’t be penalized for it with taxes on their efforts.

If Billy-Bob earns under the poverty line and plans on staying right were he’s at the rest of his life, he shouldn’t care what the rich guy pays. Or, he might care because he’s interested in more Santa Clause. If he’s interested in prosperity he’s likely a prospect for supporting the Fairtax. If not, no use trying to convince him of anything. He’s the anchor voting block of the Democratic party.

I’m not interested in convincing welfare-check watchers to lose faith in Santa Clause. There are plenty of people interested in bettering themselves we can appeal to. Even the lowliest non-welfare hillbilly has his designs on that empty garage down the street he could start doing brakes out of – or that hippy-hole house across the street he could fix up and rent – or some goofy Shamwow idea. As of today, his first several years in those ventures would have any profits consumed by taxes based on his pursuit of prosperity.

Politics – I think – is just like sales. You have to go after qualified buyers. (On a side note, I think that might be a reason for my recent visceral contempt for Obama. He so reminds me of some of the arrogant and belligerent top-sales-guy speakers I’ve had to listen to as sales conferences. They’re so totally sold it’s a crazy religion/magic show.)

This is a good one. Pelosi is trying to sell the health reform bill as something helpful to the economy. lol She’s like that sales person who will swear to the patron dying on the sales floor that this juicer will fix the problem. lol Or the idiot on the radio talking about how calcium supplements will prevent cancer – but you have to take his special coral calcium, you can’t just take Tums. Oh what? You’re not worried about Cancer? Everyone in your family dies of heart disease? Well – it just so happens that my coral calcium will prevent heart disease – yes – it’s a heart-health supplement actually.

We all know, and it has been said over and over again, that our economy needs something new, a jolt.  And I believe that this legislation will unleash tremendous entrepreneurial power into our economy. — Pelosi

This reminds me of a skit by that Canadian comedy group – The Kids in the Hall:

The car won’t start, so the ‘husband’ gets out and kicks the tire. He looks to the ‘wife’, now in the driver’s seat. “Try it now.” Nothing. He opens the hood, “Try it now.” Nothing. He closes the hood. “Try it now.” Nothing.

He ends up changing the tire, and I forget what else, everything but fix the damn engine, but it’s about the same as Pelosi’s logic when it comes to economics. Nothing about passing a bill that forces companies to provide health insurance if they have more than 50 employees will stimulate entrepreneurship.

*sigh*

It’s just ridiculous. This is something around a 10% increase (probably more) in employee costs. That might not seem like much to a foolish congresswoman who’s never had to earn a living, but when you realize that a successful business is usually functioning on a profit margin of single percentage points, and that most entrepreneurial ventures fail, and that the ones that do succeed do so only after several years of losing money – you’ll understand how difficult these fancy new taxes will make it to do the things our economy needs us to do: innovate, risk, and invest.

The only entrepreneurial powers this will unleash are new solutions to keep your staff under 50 members.

In an earthquake, the release of energy in the Earth’s crust creates seismic waves, or waves of force, that spread out from the energy release center, or epicenter.  As a wave passes an object on the ground, the ground and object move with the wave a short distance and then spring back, only to be hit by another wave, and another, and another.  This massive shifting of the ground puts great lateral stress on objects such as buildings.  As the stress on the structures that make up the building accumulates, the building eventually fails in numerous locations.  For a small-scale example, glue a cardboard house to another piece of cardboard and then shake it back and forth.  The weakest part of the house (probably the glue in this example) will fail and the house will fall over.  When Earthquakes are powerful enough, they create massive damage to cities such as what happened in Haiti.

There are three types of earht-quake proofing when constructing a house or building: passive damping, diagonalbracing, and base isolation.  Passive damping includes the use of energy-absorbing materials that can deform and take the brunt of the energy rather than the building.  Diagonal bracing is just as it sounds.  Using diaganol bracing in the frame of the building helps to prevent lateral failure.  Base isolation includes isolating the foundation of the building through the use of large rollers and a number of other techniques.  In the case of the rollers, imagine a ball inside of a bowl.  If you shake the bowl back and forth the ball will roll up and down from one rim of the bowl to the next, but not very far relative to its initial position to the ground.  Now imagine this ball connected to the corners of a building’s foundation with “bowls” underneath.  In an earthquake, the ground will shake back and forth, but the building will not move with the ground as easily.  This technique is common in places like Tokyo, but adds to building costs and complexity.  As you can imagine, old and cheap buildings in poor countries do not have the luxury of this earthquake proof construction.

Overall economic growth doesn’t translate to a better world. We all still need art and music – or so I’ve heard. But – can we all agree that overall economic shrinkage does equate to a worse world – since people will be starving to death and without homes and stuff?

Homeless rates in America haven’t been high since the 30’s. And the increase in homelessness around Reagan’s time was due to the recession he inherited from Carter. I think this is the source of all these false-phrases about Reagan. Reagan didn’t continue Carter’s style of pandering to the poor so he was vilified by the hippies. His was more of a – we’re going to take our lumps and fix it.

As I stated in chapter 3, Reagan raised the interest rates to curb the inflation that was making everyone bitch-broke. (that’s what we’ll have to do when the Obama inflation hits) According to the United States Conference of Mayors, the main cause of homelessness is lack of affordable housing. So, the policy of raising interest rates might be called a cause of homelessness – since it does increase housing cost.

• United States Conference of Mayors, “A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities: a 27-city survey”, December 2001.

Of course, this same policy helped – along with tax cuts – to jerk the country out of a bad recession, the worst one since the Great Depression. So I say that’s a bad argument. Yeah, high interest rates make housing go up. But high inflation makes everyone’s nest egg disappear, which means a layoff can mean a foreclosure – not to mention everything becomes more expensive.

Besides that I don’t know what Reagan did that wasn’t good for homeless rates – specifically the huge amount of job growth and increased standard of living. Maybe you could make arguments about specific cuts, or Democrat policies he wouldn’t employ. I seem to remember some stories about homeless shelters being closed – or something along those lines. That might have been around Reagan’s term and you know the Liberals would have vilified his entire administration over that or anything else. But overall more entitlements were going out – as my last message showed.

I finally found Obama’s graph. The Whitehouse took it down I guess – so I had to find it somewhere else. It was figure 9 on page 11 of Obama’s budget at the start of the year. Also, look at the source. Thomas Piketty is a French socialist economist. LOL

See? Share of total income, as if wealth were a constant. But wealth is not a constant. It’s not something you can simply divvy-up. People make it out of labor and resources. The fact that the top 1% has doubled their % of total income earned doesn’t mean they’re taking it from anyone. It just means they are increasing their own faster than others.

If we go picking mushrooms, and I run around the whole time in my own area picking hand over fist, while you four pick leisurely, when we get back home I might have picked 100, while each of you each picked 25. Statistically I have 50% of the mushrooms. Does that mean I have a greater share of the total mushrooms picked? Of course not. I have 100% of the mushrooms I picked and 0% of the mushrooms you picked. There are still more mushrooms out there and I didn’t push any of you out of my way to pick them – I just picked faster. Maybe I hired someone to help me? Maybe I developed a new technique? Maybe I developed a mushroom detector?

That’s why this dishonest use of the “income gap” is false. In Obama’s budget it was used as proof of disparity, the rich cheating and getting rich off the backs of the regular people following rules. It’s just pandering to popular anger… And why the hell did they need to turn to a French Socialist economist’s graph – ffs?

As for trickle-down and poverty due to Reagan policies, your assertion is false. Poverty rates have come down since Reagan took office. It has cycled, but I don’t see how any of Reagan’s policies could have contributed to poverty. It’s not like he raised anyone’s taxes. And just from looking at the graph it looks to me like recessions cause the up-ticks in poverty – and whatever Reagan did after taking office decreased poverty pretty well and fast.

Poverty decreased from 93 to 89. That’s basically all of Reagan’s term but the first year or so he spent setting up his policies. The rate increased from 89 to 93, which was Bush Sr.’s term. But blaming him would be foolish since the economic policies didn’t change. From there they have trended generally down – the whole time using Reagan’s tax cut small spending philosophy. That’s changing now for the first time since Carter (77-81).

Just a note: careful when looking at Number in Poverty. This rate goes up with increase in population.

Trickle-up is the idea that cutting taxes on the rich will result in more investment – hence more hiring, buying and selling.

Here is a graph of unemployment from 50 to 05. Unemployment went down during Reagan’s term – didn’t go up until the 90’s recession, right along with poverty.

Education, GDP, and standard of living have all come up since the 50’s, dramatically starting in the 80’s, like everything else that positive. So I can’t find any proof for this idea that Reagan was hard on the poor and homeless or that trickle-down doesn’t work. He most certainly wasn’t and it most certainly does.

If you want more proof, listen to some 80’s music or watch a couple 80’s movies. Times were great back then. Everything was an inspiration to do better, the underdog sticking to his values, and so on. I mean, Karate Kid. That’s all I’ve got to say.

Try to be best
’cause you’re only a man
and a man’s gotto learn to take it
try to believe
when the going gets rough (When the things get
difficult)
that you gotta hang tough to make it (to be strong)

History repeats itself
try and you’ll succeed
never doubt that you’re the one
and you can have your dream

you’re the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down

you’re the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down

you’re the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down

Fight till the end
‘Cause your life will depend
On the strength that you have inside you
Gotta be proud
standing out in the crowd
when they odds of the game defy you (When most of the
things in the game are against you)

try your best to win them all
and one day time will tell
when you’re the one that’s standing there
you’ve reached the final bell

you’re the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down

you’re the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down

you’re the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down

(instrumental)

you’re the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down

you’re the best around
nothing is gonna ever keep you down

Fight till you drop
Never stop
You can’t give up until you win sometime
(Fight!)
You’re the best in town
(Fight!)
Listen to that sound
A little bit of all you’ve got
never bring you down!
Chorus

I get so irritated by noisy dove, because he has become a wind bag. It’s a bunch of emotion-laden ideas that “make sense” and are “logical,” but are backed up by little actual substance (i.e. facts). It reminds me earily of Limbaugh and Beck.

I don’t mean for Noisy Dove to sound like an ideologue. Indeed, it’s often a form of therapy for me. I simply summarize some news and give my evaluation of it without sighting the facts I use. This is because I’m lazy, and a lot of stuff I generally feel like anyone interesting in Noisy Dove should already know – thing like: China lies about its emissions, socialism isn’t defined as total socialism, and 1+1=2 no matter what. I’ll try to be more thorough from now on.

Also – do you actually read the articles? I ask because often I’ll write a very thoughtful two sided piece about an Obama decision only to have the editor in chief superimpose Obama’s likeness onto the face of a donkey, or onto the butt of a dog with his lips puckered. As funny as many of the images are – they are often out of context and can make Noisy Dove seem belligerently partisan. But what can I do? It’s the editor’s prerogative.

So let’s see. You don’t believe in trickle-down or that tax cuts increase tax revenue. You even talk of Regan.

First, Regan had a recession and an energy crisis, like the gas problem we’ve had. Yet, despite this, his policies caused the largest economic expansion during peace time, starting in 1982, and created 35 million jobs.

• Joint Economic Committee, The Great Expansion: How It Was Achieved and How It Can Be Sustained, U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, 106th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 2000, pp. 4-6.

You claim, after accosting me for my emotional Noisy Dove rants, that I offer no facts. Yet you say you don’t believe tax cuts increase tax revenue. Why not? Tax revenue in 1980 was $500 billion and in 1990 it was $1 trillion. That’s an increase wouldn’t you say? Laffer curve – look it up.

• U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001: Historical Tables, February 2000, Table 1.3, p. 23.

The rich paid more taxes under Regan’s policies because they were making more money to tax. And they had more money because Regan cut taxes allowing them to invest more. He also encouraged investment. Indeed, many people became rich – that’s good.

The ‘gap’ that you are talking about – I asked you to clarify earlier – but you didn’t. So, I’ll assume you’re talking about the graph Obama’s people like to talk about, the one the Liberals are constantly pointing to. It was the one they used in their initial budget. It was a graph showing the % control of wealth. (I wish I could find it. )

Never mind. I found it. It’s a redo of the same graph by someone who obviously understands it though. LOL The trick is that what you’re looking at is %. As Noisy Dove also likes to repeat, the left sees income as a constant – not something people produce. So if the rich are getting a higher % of income while the poor a lower % – that equates to the rich bringing home more money while the poor bring home less. But that’s false – obviously.

It showed the difference between the poor and rich increasing in the past few decades. So, if the bottom 10% had their incomes increase by 3 times, and the top 10% had their incomes increase by 4 times, this graph would show a ‘gap’ in the increase, as though the rich were taking something from the poor. This is a classic socialist argument. It’s a false one too. The rich aren’t taking anything. They are creating wealth and the bottom % are benefiting with an increase standard of living – trickle down. Everyone is growing, but the ‘rich’ – the entrepreneurs – are growing fastest.

It’s actually quite funny. The very graph so many socialist use to show a disparity between the rich and poor is actual empirical evidence for trickle-down theory. It’s only logical anyway. I mean, the only way trickle-down wouldn’t work is if people found a way to make money without hiring anyone, buying materials, or using energy – and then horded all the cash. Likewise, the only was trickle-up wouldn’t work is if poor people put all their extra money into saving and paying off dept – like they are doing now – the reason the stimulus checks failed – Bush and Obama’s.

Reagan had to stop the crazy inflation of the late 70’s (Carter’s stagflation), so he tightened money. Houses had like a 12% mortgage rate when we were kids. Despite this, once Regan’s policies were in place, by 1983, the policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation resulted in unprecedented economic growth.

• This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II
• United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001: Historical Tables, February 2000, Table 1.3, p. 23.

The economy grew by a third – ffs (can’t let down Justin). Also, Regan didn’t invent this type of economic thinking. One guy you might like – JFK – he did a similar thing:

“The 1960s and 1980s were periods of record sustained high growth, mainly due to the tax cuts and reforms enacted at the beginning of each decade by Kennedy and Reagan, respectively.

The JFK administration, against the advice of many economic advisers, began cutting taxes in 1962, starting with businesses. An investment tax credit encouraged investment and changes in depreciation costs lowered the cost of capital for businesses. The top corporate rate fell from 52 to 48 percent, and the top individual marginal tax rate fell from 90 to 70 percent. The empirical evidence shows that these tax cuts stimulated growth:”  http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-taxes-affect-economic-growth

• Between 1962 and 1969, investment grew at an annual rate of 6.1 percent, far higher than the 3 percent annual rate for 1959-1962 and the 2.3 percent rate for 1969-1972 (While Carter was doing what Obama is doing now), after the JFK tax reforms had been repealed.
• Real GNP grew 4.5 percent during the 1960s, higher than the 2.4 percent growth rate seen from 1952-1960.
  • “Taxes and Long-Term Economic Growth,” House Joint Economic Committee Report, February 1997.http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/longterm/longterm.htm

In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent. To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.

• U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001: Historical Tables, February 2000, Table 1.3, p. 23. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/icb2001.pdf

As for the Regan policies cutting aid to the poor, and causing homelessness, I can’t find anything substantiating this or refuting it. According to the fact’s I’m finding Regan actually increased domestic spending. (see chart above) This sounds more like the Liberal style of attack than actual fact – or just the general politician’s argument. You know, saying someone is against heathcare reform because they didn’t vote for Pelosi-care, or saying someone is for the war because they supported development of IED resistant vehicles. It’s just stupid.

The facts is – Regan helped the poor in ways no government bureaucracy could. He stopped Carter’s inflation and unemployment. People tend to propagate ideas like Regan destroyed the inner-cities and odd things like that. More likely the damage being done to inner-cities was the flight of factories from within them and the subsequent evacuation of people to suburbs in their fancy new cars – leaving only the poor who were too poor to leave. The only thing at fault for this is an increasing standard of living. So I guess you could blame Regan – his policies did increase everyone’s standard of living quite a bit. We went from one car to a family to one car to a person – from one TV to one TV in each room – from renting to purchasing homes.

And claiming Regan “ballooned” the debt is totally unfair, especially after you complain about his disregard for the poor. And not to mention he was defeating the Soviet Union – ffs.

Contrary to the Liberal sales pitch, inflation-adjusted defense spending increased 50% between 1980 and 1989. After the cold war the spending was reduced and fell by 15 percent between 89 and 93. Means-tested entitlements (poor people aid) – not including SS or Medicare – rose by over 102% between 80 and 93, and continue to do so.

• U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001: Historical Tables, February 2000, Table 1.3, p. 23.

Regan’s policies were sound enough that Bill Clinton, as did Bush Sr., continued them resulting in the continued economic success we all grew up accustomed to and that gave us a surplus despite continued increases in entitlements. In other words, Regan’s economic policies did work. They balanced the budget, just not in his term, which would have been a hell of a thing to ask.

Actually, Clinton even followed the Regan philosophy of increased self reliance and reduced Federal involvement with his welfare reform bill: http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9608/22/welfare.sign/ . Of course, Obama reversed Clinton’s reform in the stimulus bill: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTY3NzZhNDBkNjU5MjAzZTE4YmQ4MmU5MTk2YTIxNTQ

And George W, he continued the policies as well. You again Dr. Dove– unfairly claim – “That didn’t exactly work out either.”Maybe with facts we can see what really went on. Hmmmm. Now let’s see. What happened during the Bush administration that might have hampered the economic progress the Bush tax cuts likely made? Hmmmm. Oh wait. Could it have been – oh – terrorists using airliners to destroy the world trade canters and cripple the financial district?????????????? I don’t want to irritate you with my wind-bag-ed-ness, but are you fucking kidding me????????? People were shitting their pants Dr. Dove!!!!!! People were stocking plastic and duct tape in case of a chemical attack!!!!!! People were afraid to go to work let along the fucking shopping mall! And what kind of investment climate is that – fucking airplanes crushing building out of the blue…?

And as you know, we went to war. So your claim is miserably unfair – and I think – roundly disproven, if not simply by the fact that the economy continued to grow well, despite domestic attacks and war, until the collapse of the housing bubble and subsequent failure of the derivatives market and the subsequent credit crunch.

So you see? Tax cuts work. Call it JFK’s economic policy if it makes your Liberal bone less tender. And stop absorbing these weird Liberal lies. You even had me believing the one about Regan’s policies being bad for the inner-cities… shit. I’m glad you compelled me to look into it. See – this is the value of discussion.