gdp's Comments

The Tea Party Economist : Ann Coulter Calls Libertarians "Idiots."

Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:31:53 +0000

I bristle any time Reagan is dumped in with the big spenders. He DID spend big to win the Cold War (and that produced a great budget-balancing dividend for Clinton) but not nearly as big if Dems hadn't deemed his balanced budget proposals "dead on arrival." He'd read and understood von Mises. But he had a bigger mission to accomplish first. Otherwise, I concur with the post. (Bush II had no excuse, but then he pulled the wool over no one's eyes; he said before taking office he was both a Keynesian and a supply-sider.) However, sometimes just staying home or ignoring a particular race in the voting booth has to be the better answer. There are Libertarian Candidates who are social libertarians, supporting abortion and the growing profanations of marriage, and I'd never vote for them. But I do want Karl Rove and the Rep establishment to get a BIG lesson, particularly after what they pulled in Mississippi with Cochran. Just staying home if you're a Tea Party Republican might do the trick there. That's much more important than winning the Senate. Karl Rove-ism must not endure into another election.

The Tea Party Economist : Matt Drudge Reports on Iraq: A Total Rout of Neoconservatism

Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:13:15 +0000

I'm not arguing that point. And I'm sorry if I suggested that we should have had a mission to make South Korea, let alone Iraq, a success story. And I'm not defending neoconservatism. What I'm saying is that, when you are left with the result of unwarranted "meddling," you may have the opportunity to make something good come out of it, or you can blithely turn it into a total disaster. We helped make something splendid out of South Korea. The Democrats forced us to cut and run in Vietnam (which, under JFK and LBJ, they sank us into) and it resulted in one of the world's greatest holocausts. Iraq may have been a mistake (I think so) because of Bush, but it is becoming a total disaster because of Obama.

The Tea Party Economist : Matt Drudge Reports on Iraq: A Total Rout of Neoconservatism

Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:31:58 +0000

Again, the loss is a direct result of the OBAMA Administration's policies. Since the Korean War, where an armed and avaricious North Korea and a rapacious Communist major power in the region, China, has desired the obliteration of South Korea, the U.S. has maintained a military presence that has allowed South Korea to become one of world's major success stories: economically and morally. Today we still have about 28,500 soldiers, sailors, marines, etc., there as that military presence. That large an active U.S. military presence in Iraq would have prevented al Qaeda incursions, the institution of Sharia law, and the influence of Iran for as long as it remained. It would probably have debilitated al Qaeda and the Taliban further. I'm not saying Iraq was the right decision in the first place. I'd love a do-over on this one. And neoconservatism is trigger-happy and compulsive about nation-building, and it has cost us. But what is occurring there now is not a direct result of our war in Iraq. It's a direct result of Barack Obama's abandoning the idea of a military presence to protect the peace and frustrate our enemy's desires. Obama, who once proclaimed that everything was going to be hunky-dory in Iraq as we left, has handed Islamic terrorism a gift, pure and simple.

The Tea Party Economist : Iraq in Chaos. A Total Defeat for Bush's Policies. Of Course.

Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:26:23 +0000

While I do now believe the war was a mistake, it's hard to say what's happened in Iraq was a total defeat for Bush's policies when he was succeeded by a president who dedicated himself to SABOTAGING those policies.

The Tea Party Economist : Obama Trying To Drop Hammer On Retirement Planners

Sat, 22 Feb 2014 17:00:54 +0000

I'm confused as to whether or not "all tax deductions" includes those for charity, medical and work expenses, mortgage, etc. Does "all" mean all, including the 1040 Standard Deduction? This report just focused on defined contributions and IRAs. Regardless, my wife and I combined made a very middle class $80,000 before taxes last year. In just IRA and defined contributions, we put into savings 57.5%. The year before, 47% -- savings which will be taxed when withdrawn. Add in "all" deductions, and the percentages are 77.5% last year, 69.8% in 2011. I realize that's extreme, but the point is that middle class taxpayers DO occasionally save for the future (I'm 62 now, and have saved above 28% in just defined contributions and IRAs since I was 48). I've already been penalized more than $500/year in taxes by Obamacare in over-the-counter drugs and a $2,500 per year family limit being placed on FLEX accounts (I can't imagine how that maximum hits a middle class family with, say, 6 kids). Any notion that these policies are intended to take just from the wealthy or help the middle class to save is ridiculous.

The Tea Party Economist : Are You Smarter Than an Educator? This Civic Literacy Test Will Show What You Know About U.S. Politi

Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:18:02 +0000

Fumbled at the goal line. Missed the last one! 32 out of 33. I'd be ashamed of my kid's high school home room teacher if she only got a 55, let alone a college prof.

The Tea Party Economist : America's Afghanistan Troops: “Home by Christmas . . . 2014”

Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:28:02 +0000

Obama should have to account for his 2008-9 assessment that Afghanistan was "a war of necessity" and required a surge-like effort to defeat the Taliban. This war truly became his eagerly adopted baby, although I imagine the leftwing media will curiously forget they once remembered that. It made him look the "tough guy" when he needed it during various election campaigns.

The Tea Party Economist : Pope Says Atheists Can Go to Heaven. Indulgence Market Tanks.

Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:32:44 +0000

I don't know. Maybe they were sincere. Let's ask Francis!

The Tea Party Economist : Pope Says Atheists Can Go to Heaven. Indulgence Market Tanks.

Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:07:26 +0000

Well, there goes the notion that popes will necessarily go to Heaven.

The Tea Party Economist : No, the Bible Does Not Teach the Welfare State.

Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:53:04 +0000

Dr. North's theological refutation of Ms. Hamill's screed is spot on, but, as a former math major, I am still tying to figure out Ms. Hamill's argument against regressive (which to her means anything non-progressive) tax structures: "the percentage of [higher income earners'] income needed to pay the tax liability shrinks to smaller percentages as their income climbs to higher levels." How does that work? If I make $1 million after deductions with a 10% tax rate, I pay $100,000. If I make $2 million, I pay $200,000. How are those different percentages of my income?

The Tea Party Economist : Obama (2007) vs. Obama (2013): Spying on Americans

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:47:58 +0000

Power no doubt is addictive, but that conclusion in this case presupposes that Obama meant what he said when he said it in 2007. I think Obama's Job One has always been to score political points in order to GAIN power. His use of words and rhetorical skill in 2007, I believe, were intended to bring down in the public's eyes a current administration of the other party, in order to ease his own path to power. I doubt he cared about government surveillance per se, but only that it not be used against his supporters and that it be available for him to use against his detractors. I don't think Obama has ever befriended, let alone stumbled over, "principle."

The Tea Party Economist : Murder in Houston vs. Chicago

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:17:19 +0000

I think the non-Hispanic white percentage in Chicago should be 25.7 -- right about what the percentage is in Houston. Makes the comparison all the stronger.

The Heritage Foundry : Morning Bell: Lights Out for the Light Bulb Ban?

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:53:55 +0000

I actually don't mind the curly lights. (My wife hates them; her liberal mother does so much she might vote Republican). But I have a couple of old pretty lamps that have minor shorts in them, I guess, so they blow their bulbs every six months or so. That would defeat the money savings for the CFL bulb right there, but in fact the CFL bulbs blow out in those lamps in one day! I need incandescents for them. Of course the government would have an answer to that too (throw out your lamps, re-do your wiring). Thanks, dictator.

Vision to America : Boehner Blows Up Debt Ceiling Talks

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:17:35 +0000

Why is Vision to America running leftist-slanted Politico.com reports? There's nothing "bold" about raising taxes, and Boehner never "backed away" from including them in a package. I'll unsubscribe if Vision to America can't screen out lefty propaganda like this in the future.

American Vision : "TULIP" Doesn't Mean "Reformed" — "City on a Hill" Does

Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:10:34 +0000

What a remarkable writer and thinker is Mr. Marinov. It is hard to pick out any three paragraphs within his essays without hearing the kind of sermon you'd long to hear in your own church. But forwarding his writings to friends who are looking to find His way in this world is the next best thing. And all of American Vision is a treasure in that regard.

American Vision : The First Steps in Getting it all Back

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:58:37 +0000

Ronald Reagan was not perfect, by any means. Amnesty -- which he later admitted was the worst mistake of his presidency (libertarians practically to a man, by the way, LOVE it) -- and saving Social Security (my vote for his worst mistake) are among his negative legacies. BUT: 1) You can't laud Reagan for having "bankrupted the Soviet Union" without acknowledging that this achievement was the direct result of an enormous -- and enormously expensive -- military buildup. It was something Reagan knew would cause deficits, everything else being equal (viz., Democrats controlling Congress!), but he felt it was morally and strategically worth the momentary debt. And doggone it, it WAS! 2) To laud Bill Clinton for fiscal conservatism while condemning Ronald Reagan for profligacy is to worship results and ignore intent -- no matter what. Clinton advocated far more spending than was done in his Administration; he vetoed spending bills from a Republican Congress that were attempting to CUT spending. Reagan sent balanced budgets to Congress -- 5 percent reductions to each of the baselines in his first two budgets -- even amidst his military buildup, that the Dem House Speaker Tip O'Neill branded "dead on arrival." The Dems added enormous amounts to budget bills and Reagan fought them -- vetoing 22 spending bills in his first three years alone. 3) Clinton's balance budget resulted in large part FROM the policies Ronald Reagan -- both in the peace dividend, which allowed tremendous reductions in military expenditures after Reagan's toppling of the Soviet Union, and the swing back in the economy due to renewed effect of Reagan's pro-growth tax cuts, after the mild Bush recession (the comeback was already well in place before Clinton took office). 4) Clinton also benefited on paper from a dot.com bubble. By the late '90s, the stock market was booming, revenues were pouring into the Federal Treasury, but companies were losing money on each added person hired. It was an expansion based on capital gains -- dumb investment -- and it was headed for disaster! (During the Bush II expansion of 2003-2007, businesses MADE money on each employee added.) 5) Clinton had a Republican Congress that forced spending cuts down his throat. Without Newt Gingrich and the boys, there would not have been Welfare Reform, which within two years lowered federal spending more than $100 billion annually. Had Reagan had such a Congress, he would have run budget surpluses throughout the '80s. 6) Clinton even benefited from the Savings & Loan bailout a few years to the tune of some $30 billion. The payouts were all done during Bush I -- increasing his deficits. The paybacks all came in for Clinton! Yes, one can pull statistics here and there for every argument. But knocking a true fiscal conservative who had to endure a profligate Congress (they make the budgets, after all) while achieving a noble victory for mankind, while complimenting an amoral, instinctively big-spending creep (who would have blithely let the Soviet Union live on forever and extend its dominance over all of Europe and the Middle East) -- a man who lucked into a frugal Congress, a tech bubble and a free market lifted by the President of Ronald Reagan . . . is ridiculous. It takes our minds off the real enemy -- seeks to even COMPLIMENT them for their undeserved good fortune -- while knocking those who largely think as we do and fought under adverse circumstances to make things better. Makes no sense to spend time on that.

American Vision : Can Used Soap Change the World?

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:29:08 +0000

I find a relation in spirit to Leviticus 19:9. It's cleaning gleaning. Instead of leaving the edges of the field for the poor and the foreigners, we're leaving the center of the bar.

American Vision : Double-Dip Recession, Shot Federal Wad

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:15:45 +0000

No argument with this great column, just a note on political irony. Dr. North writes: "Pelosi's ramrodding operation of Obamacare was the last straw. She was adamant: the voters be damned. This was the same attitude that Congress displayed in October 2008, when it passed the Paulson-Bush bailout bill. Incumbent Republicans were swept out of office in the House in November 2008. The public got its revenge." The final House vote on the bailout bill, on Oct. 3, 2008, had Republicans overall voting against the measure, 108-91. The bill passed because it was supported by the House Dems, 172-63. The American people took revenge on the party that agreed with them. They rewarded the gang that passed the bill. My recent post A House with Too Much Soap