Tag Archives: Ronald Reagan

MELBOURNE CAMPAIGN RALLY

Was the so-called Melbourne campaign rally held by President Trump at the Melbourne-Orlando International Airport a waste of time or a stroke of genius?

campaignrally

When the Melbourne campaign rally was first announced, I was indifferent about it. It was being billed as a campaign rally because President Trump had already signed up to run for president in 2020 and the funds to pay for the rally were coming out of the campaign.

Of course, it goes without saying that those of the “tolerant left” totally trashed it. Here are a few of the comments that were made on a liberal thread to an article from Poliltico entitled, “Trump to Take Breather from White House, Hold Rally this Weekend.”

  • Hasn’t he taken a break every weekend so far?
  • He’s up to avoiding news conferences.
  • Rally to make himself feel good.
  • I would rather him do his (deleted) job instead of wasting taxpayer money on his vacations. The Presidency isn’t a Monday-Friday, 9-5 job.
  • I’d rather he do his job. Did you get vacations after three weeks on any job you’ve ever had? Me either.

And these were some of the plainer vanilla comments that were made. Furthermore, on this thread, commenters were alleging that President Trump had already taken three vacations since his inauguration. That’s bunk and everyone, including the liberals who are alleging this know it. He’s worked every day or almost every day since assuming the office of the presidency. Visit whitehouse.gov to see a list of his accomplishments.

Back to the Melbourne campaign Rally, was it a waste of time or a stroke of genius. I think even the “tolerant left” would admit to themselves behind closed doors that it was a stroke of genius.

We almost lost this country and had Hillary Clinton been elected president, within four years, only remnants of the United States of America would probably remain. Former President Ronald Reagan once said, “Freedom is a fragile think and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance, it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.” (Taken from Wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan)

Having almost lost this country, it is up to conservatives, including Trump supporters, the President and his administration, Congress, and the Judicial system to take responsibility for seeing that our freedoms remain in place for generations to come. Trump supporters, particularly, should not become discouraged. And while there are certainly going to be mistakes made, plus the left is not ever going to give up in its quest to oust President Trump, the conservative base must stay focused and ready to fend off the flames that the “tolerant left” is sure to throw.

After the president endured a grueling week, the Melbourne campaign rally served to reinforce Trump supporters and remind them of the things that this president has already accomplished and intends to accomplish. With the Internet and social media as driving forces that no one had heard of twenty-five years ago, especially social media, Trump supporters can mix it up with the “tolerant left.”

Many of us, myself included, have at one time worked in a customer service capacity. A lot of companies require their customer service employees to attend frequent seminars designed to reinvigorate and re-instill positive attitudes related to their work. This is necessary because everyone suffers burn-out occasionally and is prone to slack or sloppiness.

President Trump, in holding the Melbourne campaign rally, seems to be adopting the above approach in keeping his base reinvigorated. Plus, he is reminding the American people of the things his administration has accomplished and providing a roadmap to what he intends to do in the weeks and months ahead.

Should he continue these rallies? Absolutely! How often? The president has not called to ask my opinion, but when he does, I’m going to tell him that every 2-1/2 to 3 months is what I would recommend. Brian Kilmeade of the Fox and Friends show recommended every two months. Or maybe whenever needed would be a possibility.

Either way, the Melbourne campaign rally served its purpose. President Trump’s base got a dose of enthusiasm, and the liberals were left with egg on their faces.

Facebooktwitter

HE OR SHE, WHO’S OUR NEXT PRESIDENT GOING TO BE?

The presidential election on November 8, 2016 will be the first election where I honestly have no idea who will win and become the next President of the United States. Note: I only said that this one is the first where I don’t feel like I can make a call. In all the elections since Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, I have made calls, even not all of them were correct.

In 1976, I was sure that Gerald Ford would be Jimmy Carter. Who in their right mind could possibly vote for Jimmy Carter? I predicted all the following elections correctly until 2012 when I forecasted that Mitt Romney would win. Again, how could anyone in their right mind vote to re-elect Barak Obama? I predicted Clinton would win in both 1992 and 1996 and that Barak Obama would win in 2008.

In this election cycle, the polls have been all over the place, and there has been hints that those polls conducted by left leaning entities may not be telling the exact truth. However, the polls, per news sources, are tightening in favor of Donald Trump. Romney seemed to have the momentum in 2012 and was ahead in the polls, but somehow, Obama pulled it out easily. Do I think there was some fraud? Possibly. Going back to 1992, I’ve always said that while Clinton had the momentum, if the election had been held four weeks later, George H.W. Bush would have been re-elected. I almost feel the same way about Donald Trump. He’s gaining momentum and Hillary is losing momentum. Is it too close to election day for Trump to surge ahead?

While I have no idea who will be elected this year, I do know one thing is certain, not only with respect to the election, but in every aspect of our lives. “God is in control.” Yes, he is. He’s in control now, and he will be in control on the morning of November 9, 2016. This is being re-enforced in my church and in my Bible study. Christians should know this. Even though God knows who’s going to come out ahead next week and none of the rest of us do, this doesn’t let us out of any responsibilities of going to vote and praying for our country.

In his message on Sunday, October 30, 2016, my minister indicated that God puts people in positions of leadership for both blessings and judgement. According the website, Now the End Begins: “All through the Bible, we see God set up kings for a purpose, and take them down for a purpose. Sometimes God raises up a ruler to bless His people like He did with King David. And sometimes He sets up a ruler by whom the people will be judged, as He did with Saul.

Should God inflict upon America a ruler for judgmental purposes, it is still our obligation to pray for this leader and to pray for our country. It is also our responsibility to speak out against policies that are being forced upon us which will be detrimental to the nation. Because God is always in control and will always be in control, He put us on this earth for a reason. He has a purpose for us and we are to fulfill that purpose and everything we do should be to glorify God.

In closing, I encourage each one of you to spend some time reading the Bible and praying. There’s also substantial information on the Internet regarding the establishment of Kings and rulers by God. There’s only a few days left whereby we will elect a president, but there is no limit to God’s control.

God Bless…

Facebooktwitter

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE 2016 ELECTION

HillaryTrump

The presidential election of 2016 has several target implications, one being the economy. Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton, has indicated that she will raise taxes on those who the government considers wealthy and lower taxes on the middle class. On the other hand, Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has indicated that he will lower taxes for everyone, including lowering the corporate income tax rate to 15%. Clinton is counting on the old liberal mantra of tax the rich, lower the boom on those evil corporations, to resonate with the American public, particularly middle and lower income individuals. Trump is hoping to make a case for a stronger economy by lowering taxes, especially on businesses, by indicating that the economy will grow rendering widespread prosperity for all.

How many times have we heard the Democrat blather stating that President George W. Bush squandered the Clinton era budget surpluses and piled up deficits with expensive wars and tax cuts for the rich? It appears whenever a Republican proposes across-the-board tax cuts where everyone who pays income tax will get a tax cut, the Democrats always scream, “tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich.” According to the Washington Times in an article in February 2010, entitled, “Bush Tax Cuts Boosted Federal Revenue,” by Ryan Dwyer, Mr. Bush’s deficits were the product of spending, not tax cuts.

This Washington Times article went on to indicated that in 2003, President Bush cut the dividend and capital gains tax rates to 15% each and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20% and $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs and the median household wealth increased by $20,000.

What liberal tax-cutting opponents refuse to accept as truth is that the 2003 Bush tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four year increase in the history of the United States. Unfortunately, Congress spent these increases on domestic programs when the tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus, the tax cuts enacted by Congress in 2003 were an important cause of an economic expansion that roared for some 50 months and created 8.1 million jobs.

Fast-forward to when Barak Obama became president and his policies, which included a stimulus that crowded out private investment, an enormous healthcare reform bill, and a nightmarish financial regulatory package; all of which delayed economic recovery from the crash of 2008, and drove the unemployment rate to 9.1%, according to the Heritage Foundation.

When discussing economic implications liberals also love to refer to the Reagan years and undermine “Reaganimics,” also known as “trickle-down” economics. When Bill Clinton became president in 1993, the Democrats couldn’t wait to declare that “trickle-down” economics was over.

According to cato.org, the economy performed better during the Reagan years that during the pre and post Reagan years.

  • Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
  • Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
  • Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
  • The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre and post Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years, but much lower in the post Reagan years.

Liberals also continue to indicated that the Reagan tax cuts were a major cause of the budget deficits and the quadrupling of the national debt in the 80s. This is factually untrue. Real federal revenues grew at a faster pace after the Reagan tax cuts, than after the Bush and Clinton tax hikes. From 1982 to 1989, revenues expanded by 24.1 percent. Over a comparable seven-year period, 1990 – 97, a period that accounts for both the Bush and the Clinton tax increases, real federal revenues grew about 19.3 percent.

If the Reagan tax cut was not the major contributing factor to the increasing deficit in the 1980s, what was? According to cato.org, there were two primary explanations: (1) large and sustained defense build-up and (2) the unexpected rapid decline in inflation and the recession in the early 1980s.

Liberals are also quick to state that Bill Clinton’s economic record has outperformed Reagan’s. The growth rate under Clinton was 2.7 percent, a half percent below the 3.2 percent growth rate under Reagan and a full percentage point below the 3.8 percent growth rate during the 1983 to 89 expansion.

From 1981 to 1989, every income quintile, from the richest to the poorest, gained income according to the Census Bureau economic data. The reason the wealthiest Americans saw their share of total income rise is that they gained income at a faster pace than did the middle class and the poor. But Reagonomics did create a rising tide that lifted nearly all boats.

By 1989, there were 5.9 million more Americans whose salaries exceeded $50,000 a year than there were in 1981 (adjusting for inflation). Similarly, there were 2.5 million more Americans earning more than $75,000 a year, an 83 percent increase. And the number of Americans earning less than $10,000 a year fell by 3.4 million workers.

While every president has had his own economic policy, Democrats do lean toward raising taxes and punishing the rich, including businesses. Republicans, however, lean toward lowering taxes for everyone to expand the economy which will result in an increase in tax revenues to the government.

The 2016 presidential election is no different with same economic implications of past presidential elections. Furthermore, the economy is always front and center in a presidential election cycle regardless of other factors such as foreign policy, crime, immigration, right to life, etc.

Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes on the rich and on those evil businesses, but promises to cut taxes on the middle class. Donald Trump is proposing tax decreases across the board, especially on corporations to create jobs and bring jobs back to America.

If you study the examples illustrated in this article, it is inevitable that Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush did more for the economy than presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barak Obama. I’ve always said that it took two brain cells to be a Republican while Democrats can operate on only one brain cell. This is one of the reasons. It takes a little more studying and deliberating to understand conservative/Republican economic philosophies.

With the baby boomers retiring, it is more important than ever that the economic implications of this presidential cycle are understood. More healthcare is going to be consumed, along with social security. Do we want our elderly suffering from lack of essentials because Social Security, something we all have paid into and were told we would receive when the time came? Do we want to elderly to go without much needed health care? Or do we want them to die out for lack of access to health care?

America, the above is your choice.

Facebooktwitter

A DIVIDED REPUBLICAN PARTY – IS THAT SO BAD?

You cannot tune into political commentary without hearing about the divided Republican Party. Republicans admit it and Democrats use it against the Republicans. Fellow Republicans admit the party is divided and are hoping that its members will re-united before the November 2016 presidential election and elect a Republican president. The Democrats are using this so-called divided Republican Party to get more votes for Democrat candidates.

Is a divided Republican Party all that bad?

In the past, I have authored several blog posts illustrating the differences between Democrats and Republicans. In review, Republicans believe that items/issues should be handled in the private sector or the lowest level of government possible; whereas, Democrats believe in a stronger more centralized government. Republicans and Democrats – What’s the Difference

Is a divided Republican Party so bad?

Yes, the Republican Party has it’s disagreements. Smart people generally do.

Republicans frequently use the term, “government over-reach” to indicate areas in which the federal government has taken control over individual freedoms and areas once controlled by states or the private sector. Don’t you think that it would be natural for individual Republicans to disagree on what may constitute “government over-reach?”

Just the other day I had a brief online discussion with a person who was very “anti-Obama” and while he didn’t indicate that he was a Republican, I think he probably is. This person, however, is a proponent of the president’s new overtime directive whereby certain salaried professionals, those making $47,000 or less, must be paid overtime by employers when they work more than 40 hours per week. I think this directive is “the plague” and will be a giant leap in destroying corporate America. This gentleman and I, both Republicans, disagreed.

The abortion issue was another issue in which Republicans were quite divided on, especially in the eighties and nineties. Many, many discussions ensued over abortion and still do today. However, with modern technology indicating that an embryo takes on many human characteristics immediately upon fertilization, the dialog of pro-choice versus pro-life is not as lively because many Republicans have converted from pro-choice to pro-life.

Democrats, on the other hand, simply and without apparent consideration, fall in lockstep with anything  the Democrat party leaders (the president, congressmen, and other party officials) declare. If it includes growing the government, raising taxes, especially on the rich, and deviating from any traditional moral behavior, the Democrats all fall in lockstep. There maybe one or two so-called conservative Democrats still left in Congress; Democrats like former Georgia Senator, Zell Miller, but for the most part these Democrats are a dying breed. Many such as Alabama Senator, Richard Shelby, have switched to the Republican Party; while many have passed away.

In addition to the fellow who felt that Obama’s overtime ruling was a good thing, I’ve had many discussions with Republicans on healthcare, the environment, abortion, gambling, taxation, affirmative action, LGBT rights, etc. A number of these Republicans have disagreed with me on many of these issues.  Also, there are many Republicans out there who will tell you that they are fiscal conservatives, but social liberals. This is common among many gay and minority professionals here in the south.

Republicans are not always going to agree with their presidents either. There were a few things where I differed from Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. That’s because I think, I reason, I research, and I’m my own person, a unique individual.

Democrats/liberals/progressives will continue to shed a negative light on a so-called divided Republican Party and claim that Democrats are always united. Sometimes I wonder just how many Democrats actually agree with everything Barak Obama has done as president. There are those Democrats who do and readily admit to worshiping him.  I call those folks “Obama zombies.” Do other Democrats really feel that we need to immediately eliminate the use of fossil fuels and flip over to the more expensive and less “green energy?” Are they okay with the demonization of the nation’s law enforcement? Do they feel that the actions of the Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter organizations in their protests are a good thing? Are they also okay with destroying a person’s life just because he or she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman? I say we’ll never know the answer to these questions because many Democrats sit silent on these matters refusing to respond to questions. And when forced to respond, they become shrill and start hurling their usual bogus accusations at Republicans.

Facebooktwitter

DEMOCRAT LIES ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH – PART 2

In part one of this series, I outlined the Democrat lies about former president George W. Bush with regard to the Iraq war and the WMDs that were not found. I also refuted the Democrat lies about the Bush tax cuts.

In the following paragraphs, I will outline another liberal lie about George W. Bush. It’s the allegation that President Bush borrowed from Social Security to fund the Iraq war and his tax cuts.

We all know that anytime a Republican president cuts taxes, liberals scream to the top of their lungs that it’s a tax cut for only the very wealthy. Not true and I refuted this in part one of this series.

In summary, the Democrats are saying that President Bush spend every dime of Social Security surplus revenue that came in during his presidency. He used it to fund his big tax cuts for the rich, and much of it was spent on wars.

This is what really happened. For about 50 years, Social Security was a “pay as you go” system, meaning annual payroll taxes pretty much covered that year’s benefits’ checks. Then in 1982, President Ronald Reagan enacted a payroll tax hike to prepare for the impending surge of retiring baby boomers, and a surplus began to build.

By law, the U.S. treasury is required to take the surplus and, in exchange, issue interest-accruing bonds to the Social Security trust funds. The Treasury, meanwhile, uses the cash to fund government expenses, though it has to repay the bonds whenever the Social Security commissioner wants to redeem them.

In this broad sense, President Bush technically “borrowed” Social Security surplus to pay for the Iraq war. But even if this loose definition is used, we still run into a few issues.

The amount that President Bush borrowed is actually around $708 billion, and little more than half of the $1.37 trillion the Democrats have alleged. While around $1.52 trillion in bonds was added to the trust fund from 2000 to 2008, the Treasury only has access to the cash revenue collected every year, not the interest accrued on the entire surplus.

Second, President Bush didn’t exclusively spend it on the war, which has an estimated cost of $1.7 million. Other big costs include the financial bailout in 2008, something the liberals should be cheering, since their guy, Obama, carried on the bailouts.

The cash that the Treasury received from the Social Security surplus was not earmarked for any specific government program, according to Andrew Eschew, a former Social Security research analyst at the U.S. Government Accountability Office and current spokesperson for the Center on Retirement Research at Boston College. The larger question is whether the existence of the surplus influenced Congress’ spending decisions. But Eschew pointed out that no one can prove what was on the lawmakers’ minds. He further indicated that the idea that lawmakers consciously thought they could only go into Iraq because of a surplus was a stretch.

Eschew concluded that if we characterize the entire trust fund system as the government borrowing from Social Security, Bush was by no means the only debtor. By law, the Social Security surplus is converted into bonds, and the cash is used to pay for government expenses. If we agree then this is borrowing, that every president since 1935 has done it to fund all sorts of items. Even if Bush borrowed from the surplus, the amount is more like $708 billion and the borrowing wasn’t earmarked for a special purpose.

As for not paying back, the bonds won’t need to be repaid until 2020.

Politifact.com provided the material for this post.

Facebooktwitter