Tag Archives: GDP

DEMOCRAT LIES ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH – PART ONE

We’ve heard them all before and most of us are sick of hearing them. Unfortunately, the conservative-learning talking heads, with the exception of Rush Limbaugh, maybe, won’t address them and just roll over whenever Democrats make the accusations and flat-out lie. In this series of articles, I’m going to outline a number of lies that the Democrats have told about former President, George W. Bush and correct the record.

Bush Lied, People Died:

We all remember this from the Iraq War. After pushing back Saddam Hussein’s military, the search for the weapons of mass destruction that intelligence indicated existed were not found.

In all of their pontifications and emotional tirades, liberals have convinced themselves and a lot of others that until the Bush administration began no one was linking Saddam Hussein to weapons of mass destruction and that the reason Bush took us to war in Iraq was to get revenge on Saddam Hussein for the assignation attempt on this father, former President George H. W. Bush.

Here’s exactly what happened.

H.J.Res. 114(107th), the authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was the Congressional vote on whether to invade Iraq or not. The resolution passed 296-133. 214 Republicans supported it along with 81 Democrats. Everyone had access to the same intelligence that indicated Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

President Clinton, while still in office, in a speech at the Pentagon, made the assertion that not acting against Saddam Hussein was tantamount to allowing him to gain, and therefore to use, weapons of mass destruction.  Clinton went on to say, “Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some say, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think everyone of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that too.”

By year’s end, Clinton made good on this threat to attack Iraq with U.S. and British forces engaging in a three-day bombing campaign, Operation Desert Fox, aimed at degrading Saddam Hussein’s presumed WMD capabilities. “Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles,” Clinton said as the bombing started. “With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them…and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.”

Weeks before Desert Fox, on October 31, 1998, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act.  In a statement, the President said the following: “Today I am signing into law, the ‘Iraq Liberation Act if 1998.’ This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

What a selective memory liberals have? There were actions by the Clinton administration in the late nineties that were in response to problems in that region. President George W. Bush didn’t just dream this up as liberals still indicate. If you don’t believe me, just visit some of your favorite liberal websites and search on the Iraqi war.

For more detailed information, please see my article posted on Wing Nut Gal dated December 27, 2014 entitled, “Can Democrats be that Forgetful.”

Bush’s Tax Cuts for the Rich:

In 2001, President George W. Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the largest tax relief package in a generation. In 2003, President Bush proposed and signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Among other things, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act reduced tax rates for every American who paid income taxes. It also created a new 10 percent tax bracket. Of course we all know that the Democrats called this tax cuts for the rich, when in effect everyone who paid income taxes received a tax cut. Those not paying income tax would not obviously receive a cut.

Despite being in a recession, due to the .com bust, and 9/11, the economy returned to growth in the fourth quarter of 2001 and continued to grow for twenty-four consecutive quarters. The economy grew at a rapid pace of 7.5 percent above inflation during the third quarter of 2003, the highest since 1984. The President’s tax relief also reduced the marginal effective rate on new investment, which encourages additional investment and, in the long-run, higher wages for workers.

The President’s tax relief was followed by increases in tax revenue. From 2005 to 2007, tax revenues grew faster than the economy. The ratio of receipts to GDP rose to 18.8 percent in 2007, above the 40-year average. Between 2004 and 2006, capital gains realizations grew by approximately 60%. Growth in corporate income tax receipts was strong in President Bush’s second term, nearly doubling between 2004 and 2007. With nearly all of the tax relief provisions fully in effect, the President’s tax relief reduced the share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 3.1 percent in 2005. The share of taxes paid by the top 10 percent rose from 46.0 percent to 46.4 percent.

Liberals have repeatedly indicated that President Bush stole money from the Social Security trust fund to pay for his tax cuts for the rich. Not true, libs!

Facebooktwitter

LIBERAL LIES ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY

I’m writing this post late in the afternoon on Wednesday, March 25, 2015. I’ve seen so many things that have upset me today with regard to the direction that this country is going. Oh well, I’m just going to say it, liberal lies. Since I started following politics and became a Republican, I’ve heard that the Republicans are going to cut Social Security benefits that they are going to destroy Social Security. “I’m scared Reagan is going to cut my Social Security. I’m scared Bush (George H.W.) is going to cut my Social Security. I’m scared Bush (George W.) is going to cut my Social Security.” Has it happened? I don’t think so. For those individuals born between 1946 and 1958, the retirement age has been increased from 65 to 66, and for those individuals born after 1959, the retirement age has been increased to 67. Benefits were not cut, though. Whenever there is a Republican proposal regarding Social Security, you can bet that the liberals will be out in droves saying that the Republicans want to cut or completely demolish Social Security.

Last week, two liberal Friends posted a photo of several well-healed looking business men sitting around a very nice table in what looked like an executive lounge or a private club. The caption indicated that a group of high income executives called the Business Roundtable or Roundtable Business group had advised Republican lawmakers to consider upping the retirement age for receiving Social Security benefits. Details were not discussed, although I would think the retirement age would stay in place for those individuals who are fifty or older. All of a sudden, the Republicans were beholden to the rich who wanted to cut Social Security. What a crock? I posted back in a very tactful way what my research had discovered. I indicated that when seeing something that looks unreasonable, you need to check it out before slapping it up there on social media. One of the liberals thanked me for bring the truth to his attention. One of them never replied.

This morning a different Facebook friend posted a photograph from Blue Nation Review and indicated that Republicans are trying to kill Social Security again. This is what I discovered when I did some research. The House GOP budget released this week included a provision to block a traditionally routine transfer of funds — known as a “reallocation” — from the Social Security retirement fund to the Social Security Disability Insurance fund, which is projected to be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2016. It affirmed a House rule adopted by Republicans in January to prohibit such a reallocation without reforms to improve the overall financial health of Social Security. A little more research revealed that transferring money from the Social Security retirement fund to the Social Security disability fund has taken place eleven times and the transaction was complete automatically. Whether you think making it not-so-automatic to transfer money from the retirement fund to the disability fund is a good idea or not, any reasonable and prudent individual can see that this is not “killing Social Security.”

The third thing regarding Social Security that made me mad to day was a quote from Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders. The Senator’s quote went like this: “Today, someone making $10 million a year contributes the same amount into the Social Security Trust Fund as someone making $117,000 a year. By lifting the cap, we can not only extend the solvency of Social Security by decades, but we can also increase benefits. And that’s exactly what we should do.”

Well, let’s not let the truth get in our way, Senator. A person making $10 million dollars a year receives the same amount as someone making the cap for contributions, $117,000. Social Security was designed that way. A low-income individual draws a larger share of their contributions than someone with a high income. It’s very much modeled after the Karl Marx philosophy, “From each according to his ability, to each, according to his need.”

Let’s say we life the cap and everyone must pay 6% or 12% of their income into Social Security. Will those high income folks draw more in Social Security benefits now that they are paying more? How will this affect the system? Will this have the same effect that taxing the rich does? That is, will we see a loss of jobs, and increase in the prices of goods and services, or a lowering of GDP? These are serious questions that the Senator and the rest of the Democrats/liberals must answer. Can you say “slippery slope?”

According to a number of liberal websites, the Social Security retirement fund has enough money in it so that full benefits can be paid until the mid-2030’s. After that only 75% of the benefits can be paid. Folks, that’s not very far away, only twenty years. Those twenty years will be here before we know it. It seems like yesterday that I was at the movies watching Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Bruce Willis, and Uma Thurman in the movie, “Pulp Fiction.”
With our out of control dictator, I can imagine that at some point, individuals who have faithfully contributed to Social Security might not be eligible to draw their benefits. At retirement age, the Feds would declare someone ineligible because of their net worth. If your net worth is over a certain amount at the time you reach retirement age, you can’t draw Social Security. Instead you live exclusively on your accumulated wealth. What you have contributed will be re-distributed.

The above is pure speculation on my part of what might happen if liberal Democrats are elected to the Presidency for years to come. My predictions about a lot of things that would happen when the current President was elected proved to be true.

Facebooktwitter

WAGES AS A PERCENT OF THE ECONOMY

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton and now Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC, Berkley; posted an interesting blurb on his Facebook page.

Professor Reich pointed out that wages as a percent of the American Economy/GDP is very low at this point and has been for the last thirty years or so. He also makes a point that in the fifties, it was much higher. Also in the fifties, especially during the Eisenhower years, the income tax rate for top earners was 91%, but yet we built the interstate highway system and public education was expanded. In the sixties, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts were passed, extending prosperity and participation to African-Americans. Then Medicare and Medicaid legislation was passed which reduced poverty among America’s seniors. Finally, the professor sites the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency to help save our planet.

The purpose of this post was to promote income equality and site why things were so much better in the thirty years following the ending of World War II.

It does seem as though corporate profits are at an all-time high and wages are low. Mr. Reich goes on to indicate that the wages of the typical American worker doubled, just as the size of the American Economy doubled.

I love to see companies pay good wages and salaries to those folks who deserve such and I wish the percent of wages to GDP was higher. In researching this, I only found limited information.

So, why do I think this is happening? According to Mr. Reich’s post, one-third of all American workers in the private sector belonged to unions. Now it’s fewer than seven percent. Of course, liberals love those labor unions and see unions as a way to attack who they consider the elite. At present, workers don’t appear to want to unionize. How could this be? In the fifties the unions procured good wages for workers and stuck it to top management.

We extended public education and required that children be placed in school and attend until they were at least sixteen years of age. Maybe those folks, after benefitting from more education, felt empowered to fight their own battles. Maybe they took that assembly line job when they were eighteen with aspirations of moving to the corporate headquarters. If they had a problem, maybe they would rather take it up privately with their immediate superior rather than go before a union board. While unions may be more capable of getting groups of workers higher wages, sometimes using tactics such as threats and intimidation, the individual worker may choose to take less in the form of compensation feeling that he/she may be better off in the long run.

Many workers before the seventies had little or no education and were pretty much limited to doing manual labor and as a result, may have needed unions to run interference for them. But now, due in part to a better educated and more knowledgeable workforce, unions are not needed as much as they may have been in the past.

Speaking of a more knowledgeable workforce, in the fifties, people that had televisions were only able to receive two or three stations with newscasts at the dinner hour. For those that couldn’t afford television, radios were a source of news, but most of the news on the radio was local news. Of course, there was the newspaper, but for the many who could not read, the newspaper was useless unless someone in their household could read it to them. Starting in the seventies, cable TV came on the horizon and by the early eighties, CNN, America’s first twenty-four hour news channel was broadcasting in many homes.

In summarizing the decline in union membership, one might say that due to the expansion of public education and better access to information, many people are convinced that joining a union is not a good thing and that they would be better off in the long run without the union, even if their wage is lower.

Another reason why the percentage of wages to GDP may be portrayed as low is that benefit packages may not have been included. Benefits for workers now are much better than they were in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. Remember the old major medical policies? These were the policies offered to workers where hospitalization and other costly medical expenses were paid for, but routine checkups and routine medication were paid out of the worker’s pocket. Now, after co-pays and deductibles are met, routine checkups, pharmaceuticals, and many other incidentals are covered by health insurance, costing employers a lot more. Also, there was no such thing as dental insurance until at least the late seventies. I don’t think that I had dental coverage until the nineties.

Also came the 401(k) where a worker could elect to have a certain percentage of his/her paycheck taken out and invested for his/her retirement. These dollars were not taxed because at the time of withdrawal, the worker may have a lower income. Many companies implemented matching plans where up to a certain percentage was matched by the company. Was the money employers paid out in 401(k) matches included in determining the percentage of wages to GDP.

While the money spent on employee benefit packages does not go to the employee as wages, it amounts to a substantial expenditure by the company on behalf of the employee and benefit packages are much larger today than they were thirty to sixty years ago.

In addition to the wages and benefits that go directly to employees, a substantial part of an employer’s expenses are those paid on behalf of employees such as training and special seminars. For instance, it is custom and practice for every new hire in this day and age to go through a sexual harassment seminar. A seminar such as this takes money implement and administer. Also, some larger employers require employees to go through sensitivity training so they can communicate with people from different cultures without being offensive.

When this percentage started going down in the seventies, the baby boomers were graduating from college and flooding the job market. Furthermore, in the fifties and early sixties, most of the folks graduating from college and going after the professional jobs were white males. White females were relegated to the lower paying jobs such as teachers, secretaries, and nurses. Also, people were getting married at early ages and a lot of women became housewives and mothers in their early twenties.

The above, coupled with the civil rights movement of the early sixties where barriers were lifted to blacks and other minorities and the women’s movement of the early seventies, flooded the job market even more. As a result, there were more people seeking jobs than there were jobs to be filled. And this is going to drive the salaries down. Jobs that were traditionally held by white males up until about the mid-seventies were also being sought by women and minorities.

The above are just a few of the reasons that come to mind when I’m confronted with these statistics. There are certainly more reasons out there, but in my opinion, these are the main ones that may have helped to lower the percentage of wages to GDP in the U.S.

In closing, it’s funny because liberals/progressives/democrats are quick to accuse republicans of wanting to take us back to the fifties; but it seems in Professor Reich’s post, the liberals may be the ones that want to go back to earlier times.

Facebooktwitter