While GWB's service in the National Guard is a big deal to many on the left, the majority of the people are smart enough to know that while his NG service 30+ years ago was probably relevant to the election in 2000, it is not relevant at all now. He has a nearly four-year record as president and commander-in-chief, including the prosecution of two wars. The electorate need look no further to decide if he has been effective.
Along with their attempts to portray John Kerry as a "war hero", the left just doesn't 'get it'.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
al-Qaeda/Iraq Connection Revisited
A very detailed report outlining a secret memo from Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senate Intelligence Committee members Jay Rockefeller and and Pat Roberts published in November of 2003 in the Weekly Standard shows a clear relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq between 1990 and 2003.
Read it yourself and make up your own mind: Weekly Standard
Read it yourself and make up your own mind: Weekly Standard
Friday, September 24, 2004
Things are getting worse in Iraq?
Listening to the so-called mainstream media recently, it seems as if things are getting worse rather than better in Iraq. To be sure, there is more violence occuring recently, including the barbaric beheadings of two American hostages this week alone. But there is always more to the story than meets the eye, and the Conspiracies Group of the Lost-Tooth Society has suggested that it is a bit too convenient for the Kerry Campaign that the situation in Iraq is being portrayed by the mainstream media as rapidly deteriorating.
To counter-balance the perspective of the mainstream media, the Conspiracies Group has brought to our attention an article by James S. Robbins in the National Review Online wherein he describes the results of several large, scientifically conducted polling of Iraqi citizens.
There is too much detail to recite here, but suffice it to say that the majority of people of Iraq believe that they are in much better shape in almost all matters now than during Saddam's dictatorship.
Read the whole article here.
To counter-balance the perspective of the mainstream media, the Conspiracies Group has brought to our attention an article by James S. Robbins in the National Review Online wherein he describes the results of several large, scientifically conducted polling of Iraqi citizens.
There is too much detail to recite here, but suffice it to say that the majority of people of Iraq believe that they are in much better shape in almost all matters now than during Saddam's dictatorship.
Read the whole article here.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Haiti UPDATE
With still no complaints from the political left, the death toll from now Hurricane Jeanne has gone over 1,000, and it is expected to rise to over 2,000.
Read more here.
Read more here.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Where is the Outcry about Haiti?
Reports from Haiti today lists the death toll from tropical storm Jeanne at over 660 people, and at least 1,000 missing. Where, we wonder, is the outcry from the left over this horrendous loss of life? Why are they silent over this trajedy? To be honest, there has been no outcry from the right, either, but we would have thought that the left would have been much more concerned over this calamity, these 660 deaths, and probably many more to come, in just these few days.
Maybe they are only concerned over war deaths, as they see them as preventable. But couldn't many of these been prevented? Much worse storms hit nearby islands and even the USA without this terrible death toll. Perhaps it was the fact the that country was ill-prepared aftern having been run for so long by a socialist dictator that should have been toppled long ago. But that would have meant war, and we know how the left feels about the USA going to war to topple left-wing, socialist dictators.
Read about the disaster here.
Maybe they are only concerned over war deaths, as they see them as preventable. But couldn't many of these been prevented? Much worse storms hit nearby islands and even the USA without this terrible death toll. Perhaps it was the fact the that country was ill-prepared aftern having been run for so long by a socialist dictator that should have been toppled long ago. But that would have meant war, and we know how the left feels about the USA going to war to topple left-wing, socialist dictators.
Read about the disaster here.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Remembering 9/11
We note with sadness today the 3rd anniversary of the attacks of September 11th. It was a day that forever changed America and the world. A sad and tragic day that we all witnessed the very worst of human behavior and the very best. Widows, widowers, and heros were made that day, as well as cowards and thugs. Thousands of children lost their parents, and thousands of parents lost their children. Husbands lost their wives, and wives lost their husbands. Girlfriends lost their boyfriends, and boyfriends lost their girlfriends. America lost her innocence, and those behind the attacks would soon lose their safe havens.
But amidst the rubble and ruins of human beings and buildings, the human spirit rose to new heights. People who just hours before did not know each other were hugging and crying together in their grief. Fire and police officers, as well as other emergency workers, set aside their own personal safety to help others. Ordinary citizens helped in any way their could. Despite the enormity of the situation, and despite the way Hollywood has traditionally portrayed how people react to disasters, people didn't panic, at least for the most part.
September 11th also saw the first real counter-attack in the War on Terror. Those brave citizens aboard Flight 93 fought back. They knew the fate of the first three planes from using their cell phones, and were not about to let their plane hit the Capitol, or the Whitehouse, or whatever their target. So they fought back they way Americans have always done; they volunteered to take on the terrorists. They were the first American militia of the 21st century.
The American flag has flown continuously over the LTS Building since September 11th, and will continue to fly overhead until this war is finally over. It may be years, or even decades, but for the sake of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice on September 11th and since, we cannot—we will not—give up until we have rooted out all those who hate freedom.
In the words of Golda Meir, "When they love their children more than they hate us we will have peace."
But amidst the rubble and ruins of human beings and buildings, the human spirit rose to new heights. People who just hours before did not know each other were hugging and crying together in their grief. Fire and police officers, as well as other emergency workers, set aside their own personal safety to help others. Ordinary citizens helped in any way their could. Despite the enormity of the situation, and despite the way Hollywood has traditionally portrayed how people react to disasters, people didn't panic, at least for the most part.
September 11th also saw the first real counter-attack in the War on Terror. Those brave citizens aboard Flight 93 fought back. They knew the fate of the first three planes from using their cell phones, and were not about to let their plane hit the Capitol, or the Whitehouse, or whatever their target. So they fought back they way Americans have always done; they volunteered to take on the terrorists. They were the first American militia of the 21st century.
The American flag has flown continuously over the LTS Building since September 11th, and will continue to fly overhead until this war is finally over. It may be years, or even decades, but for the sake of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice on September 11th and since, we cannot—we will not—give up until we have rooted out all those who hate freedom.
In the words of Golda Meir, "When they love their children more than they hate us we will have peace."
Friday, September 10, 2004
Left-Wing Bias of the Associated Press
Almost all of the recent polls have shown George Bush pulling ahead of John Kerry, some by as much as 11%. I would expect to see the polls shift back and forth several times in the remaining weeks of the campaign, but the leftward bias of the Associated Press (AP) is showing ever clearer each day.
Their September 10th article describing the results of their own AP-Ipsos Public Affairs poll begins by showing that GWB has gained on almost all issues, including the War in Iraq and job creation:
"Seven weeks before Election Day, the Republican is considered significantly more decisive, strong and likable than Kerry, and he has strengthened his position on virtually every issue important to voters, from the war in Iraq and creating jobs - two sources of criticism - to matters of national security and values.
Since the Democratic National Convention ended in late July, the president has erased any gains Kerry had achieved while reshaping the political landscape in his favor: Nearly two-thirds of voters think protecting the country is more important than creating jobs, and Bush is favored over Kerry by a whopping 23 percentage points on who would keep the United States safe."
So far, so good. But then they describe the demographics of support for Kerry and Bush:
"The AP-Ipsos-Public Affairs poll showed minorities, urban residents and other Democratic voters unified behind Kerry, as would be expected in the fall. But he lost ground in virtually every other demographic group: lower educated voters, suburbanites, rural voters, the middle class, married couples and baby boomers."
The clear implication from that paragraph is that only red-neck idiots would vote for Bush.
You can read the entire article here, but we believe this is just the latest example of bias in the media.
Their September 10th article describing the results of their own AP-Ipsos Public Affairs poll begins by showing that GWB has gained on almost all issues, including the War in Iraq and job creation:
"Seven weeks before Election Day, the Republican is considered significantly more decisive, strong and likable than Kerry, and he has strengthened his position on virtually every issue important to voters, from the war in Iraq and creating jobs - two sources of criticism - to matters of national security and values.
Since the Democratic National Convention ended in late July, the president has erased any gains Kerry had achieved while reshaping the political landscape in his favor: Nearly two-thirds of voters think protecting the country is more important than creating jobs, and Bush is favored over Kerry by a whopping 23 percentage points on who would keep the United States safe."
So far, so good. But then they describe the demographics of support for Kerry and Bush:
"The AP-Ipsos-Public Affairs poll showed minorities, urban residents and other Democratic voters unified behind Kerry, as would be expected in the fall. But he lost ground in virtually every other demographic group: lower educated voters, suburbanites, rural voters, the middle class, married couples and baby boomers."
The clear implication from that paragraph is that only red-neck idiots would vote for Bush.
You can read the entire article here, but we believe this is just the latest example of bias in the media.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Another Perspective on Barry Goldwater
George Will's column from last Thursday discusses Barry Goldwater's brand of conservatism, "Goldwaterism", which Mr. Will sees as on the rise in the Republican party. Here is an excerpt:
"The re-emergence into Republican respectability of conservatism with a socially libertarian cast — Goldwaterism — is a development with a large potential to discomfort the Democratic Party. The re-emergence can make the Republican Party more appealing to many young and suburban voters, two cohorts in which Democrats have recently made substantial gains."
You can read for yourself his entire column.
"The re-emergence into Republican respectability of conservatism with a socially libertarian cast — Goldwaterism — is a development with a large potential to discomfort the Democratic Party. The re-emergence can make the Republican Party more appealing to many young and suburban voters, two cohorts in which Democrats have recently made substantial gains."
You can read for yourself his entire column.
Saturday, September 04, 2004
"If they say it's not about the money, it's about the money"
Curious about an activist group? Want to find out where they get their funding? How about who they fund? You can find out all about them on a facinating website called ActivistCash.com.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Barry Goldwater's Acceptance Speech at the 1964 Republican Convention
We at the LTS are too young to remember much about Barry Goldwater and his run for the presidency versus LBJ in 1964, but have long felt that he was a far right-wing conservative, mainly because that was how the so-called mainstream media portrayed him. But after reading the excerpt below from his acceptance speech, he seems to me to be rather mainstream. Read for yourself and form your own opinion: (Link to full text below)
"In our vision of a good and decent future, free and peaceful, there must be room for deliberation of the energy and talent of the individual - otherwise our vision is blind at the outset.
We must assure a society here which, while never abandoning the needy or forsaking the helpless, nurtures incentives and opportunity for the creative and the productive. We must know the whole good is the product of many single contributions.
I cherish a day when our children once again will restore as heroes the sort of men and women who - unafraid and undaunted - pursue the truth, strive to cure disease, subdue and make fruitful our natural environment and produce the inventive engines of production, science, and technology.
This Nation, whose creative people have enhanced this entire span of history, should again thrive upon the greatness of all those things which we, as individual citizens, can and should do. During Republican years, this again will be a nation of men and women, of families proud of their role, jealous of their responsibilities, unlimited in their aspirations - a Nation where all who can will be self-reliant.
We Republicans see in our constitutional form of government the great framework which assures the orderly but dynamic fulfillment of the whole man, and we see the whole man as the great reason for instituting orderly government in the first place.
We see, in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We do not seek to lead anyone's life for him - we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.
We Republicans seek a government that attends to its inherent responsibilities of maintaining a stable monetary and fiscal climate, encouraging a free and a competitive economy and enforcing law and order. Thus do we seek inventiveness, diversity, and creativity within a stable order, for we Republicans define government's role where needed at many, many levels, preferably through the one closest to the people involved."
Here is the whole speech. (brought to our attention by a colleague on the Left)
"In our vision of a good and decent future, free and peaceful, there must be room for deliberation of the energy and talent of the individual - otherwise our vision is blind at the outset.
We must assure a society here which, while never abandoning the needy or forsaking the helpless, nurtures incentives and opportunity for the creative and the productive. We must know the whole good is the product of many single contributions.
I cherish a day when our children once again will restore as heroes the sort of men and women who - unafraid and undaunted - pursue the truth, strive to cure disease, subdue and make fruitful our natural environment and produce the inventive engines of production, science, and technology.
This Nation, whose creative people have enhanced this entire span of history, should again thrive upon the greatness of all those things which we, as individual citizens, can and should do. During Republican years, this again will be a nation of men and women, of families proud of their role, jealous of their responsibilities, unlimited in their aspirations - a Nation where all who can will be self-reliant.
We Republicans see in our constitutional form of government the great framework which assures the orderly but dynamic fulfillment of the whole man, and we see the whole man as the great reason for instituting orderly government in the first place.
We see, in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We do not seek to lead anyone's life for him - we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.
We Republicans seek a government that attends to its inherent responsibilities of maintaining a stable monetary and fiscal climate, encouraging a free and a competitive economy and enforcing law and order. Thus do we seek inventiveness, diversity, and creativity within a stable order, for we Republicans define government's role where needed at many, many levels, preferably through the one closest to the people involved."
Here is the whole speech. (brought to our attention by a colleague on the Left)
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
The Republican Party & Race Issues
As layed out in my previous post, many people wrongly believe that the Republican party has not been a friend of minorities. Once again, the facts do not support that argument. The Republican party, in fact, was founded on a strong anti-slavery position in early 1854 in Michigan.
The Grolier Mulitmedia Encyclopedia has a very good write up on the history of the Republican party from its founding in 1854 to GHWB's presidency. Here is an excerpt on the party's origins:
"Scholars agree that the origins of the party grew out of the sectional conflicts regarding the expansion of slavery into the new western territories. The stimulus for political realignment was provided by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. That law repealed earlier compromises that had excluded slavery from the territories. The passage of this act served as the unifying agent for abolitionists and split the Democrats and the Whig party. "Anti-Nebraska" protest meetings spread rapidly through the country. Two such meetings were held in Ripon, Wis., on Feb. 28 and Mar. 20, 1854, and were attended by a group of abolitionist Free Soilers, Democrats, and Whigs. They decided to call themselves Republicans because they professed to be political descendants of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republican party. The name was formally adopted by a state convention held in Jackson, Mich., on July 6, 1854.
The new party was a success from the beginning. In the 1854 congressional elections 44 Republicans were elected as a part of the anti-Nebraskan majority in the House of Representatives, and several Republicans were elected to the Senate and to various state houses. In June 1856, at the first Republican national convention, Sen. John C. Frémont was nominated for the presidency but was defeated by Democrat James Buchanan. During the campaign the northern wing of the Know-Nothing party split off and endorsed the Republican ticket, making the Republicans the principal antislavery party.
Two days after the inauguration of Buchanan, the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which increased sectional dissension and was denounced by the Republicans."
You can read the entire article here.
The Grolier Mulitmedia Encyclopedia has a very good write up on the history of the Republican party from its founding in 1854 to GHWB's presidency. Here is an excerpt on the party's origins:
"Scholars agree that the origins of the party grew out of the sectional conflicts regarding the expansion of slavery into the new western territories. The stimulus for political realignment was provided by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. That law repealed earlier compromises that had excluded slavery from the territories. The passage of this act served as the unifying agent for abolitionists and split the Democrats and the Whig party. "Anti-Nebraska" protest meetings spread rapidly through the country. Two such meetings were held in Ripon, Wis., on Feb. 28 and Mar. 20, 1854, and were attended by a group of abolitionist Free Soilers, Democrats, and Whigs. They decided to call themselves Republicans because they professed to be political descendants of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republican party. The name was formally adopted by a state convention held in Jackson, Mich., on July 6, 1854.
The new party was a success from the beginning. In the 1854 congressional elections 44 Republicans were elected as a part of the anti-Nebraskan majority in the House of Representatives, and several Republicans were elected to the Senate and to various state houses. In June 1856, at the first Republican national convention, Sen. John C. Frémont was nominated for the presidency but was defeated by Democrat James Buchanan. During the campaign the northern wing of the Know-Nothing party split off and endorsed the Republican ticket, making the Republicans the principal antislavery party.
Two days after the inauguration of Buchanan, the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which increased sectional dissension and was denounced by the Republicans."
You can read the entire article here.
Republicans and the Civil Rights Act of 1964
It has been brought to our attention that many otherwise intelligent people—based on decades of propaganda from the left—think that it was Democrats who fought for and brought into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the facts, pesky as they may be, simply do not support that argument.
Here is how the final votes were cast:
House of Representatives:
Here is how the final votes were cast:
House of Representatives:
- Democrats: Y=152; N=96 (63% against passage)
- Republicans: Y=138; N=42 (25% against)
Senate:
- Democrats: Y=37; N=27 (73% against)
- Republicans: Y=27; N=6 (22% against)
To be sure, most of the opposition in the Democratic ranks came from southerners, but the voting record clearly debunks claims by the Left that Republicans have a "race problem".
If either party needs to address its historical position on race, these facts suggest it should be the Democrats.
Details on how the 1964 CRA legislation made its way through the halls of Congress can be found here.
Friday, August 27, 2004
"Rolling Back Government: Lessons from New Zealand"
Hillsdale College's April 2004 Imprimis has a fabulous article by Maurice McTigue, a former New Zealand MP and government official on how New Zealand was able reform government and make it more efficient, smaller, and build a much better national economy through the application of free-market capitalism.
It's a great read, and you can find it here.
(Brought to our attention by Dissecting Leftism (see Links))
It's a great read, and you can find it here.
(Brought to our attention by Dissecting Leftism (see Links))
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Max Cleland is a Bush Political Appointee
Sounds crazy, I know. Yes, the same man who went to GWB's Crawford, Texas ranch to very publicly demand that GWB order the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth to stop running their advertisments critical of John Kerry.
Rich Lowry of the National Review Online lays out all the details.
Rich Lowry of the National Review Online lays out all the details.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Anti-Kerry Ads and the Mainstream Media
Isn't it pathetic how the mainstream media takes a GWB comment and trumpets it totally out of context? Especially in their headlines. Today GWB expressed disappointment with ALL negative ads by the so-called 527 groups, including anti-Kerry AND anti Bush. But all the headlines said was, "Bush condemns anti-Kerry Ads".
It's interesting to note that Kerry has not yet condemned such ads, despite the fact that the anti-Bush 527 groups have outspend the SwiftBoat vets ads $60 million to $800,000.
It's interesting to note that Kerry has not yet condemned such ads, despite the fact that the anti-Bush 527 groups have outspend the SwiftBoat vets ads $60 million to $800,000.
Move-on.org Coordinating with the Kerry Campaign?
This weekend saw the Kerry campaign, obviously panicked by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth advertisements, claiming that this veteran’s group was illegally coordinating with the Bush campaign. They went so far today as to file a complaint with the FEC over the matter, despite having produced ‘zero’ evidence of such collaboration. They have also called for the president to denounce the Swiftboat ads, despite the fact that the Swiftboat group has spent only $800,000 compared to the nearly $20 million spend by George Soros funded Move-on.org. I guess the Swiftboat ads have hit a raw nerve in the Kerry camp.
In addition, the Kerry campaign tried to say, “Gotcha” over reports this weekend that the White House had dismissed an advisor on veterans affairs when they learned he was associated with the Swiftboat group. However, there is more to this story:
One of the Kerry advisors has been, and apparently still is involved with Move-on.org. Read more about it here: American Spectator
In addition, the Kerry campaign tried to say, “Gotcha” over reports this weekend that the White House had dismissed an advisor on veterans affairs when they learned he was associated with the Swiftboat group. However, there is more to this story:
One of the Kerry advisors has been, and apparently still is involved with Move-on.org. Read more about it here: American Spectator
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Classic Liberalism & Conservatives
Classical Liberalism of the 18th century was a political philosophy that espoused individual liberty and economic freedom through the idea of limited government, private property rights, and free market capitalism. Those ideals cannot be ascribed to today’s liberals, but applied well to conservatives. The founders of our Constitution would have been Classic Liberals, a label shared in name only with modern Liberals. In fact, modern-day liberalism represents the complete opposite of these ideals.
Liberalism as known today is merely watered-down Socialism, wherein the ‘rights’ of society are promoted over the rights of the individual. Socialism (including its 1st cousins Communism and Fascism) places above all else the State. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”, is socialism’s creed, but this ‘workers paradise’ is paid for by abrogation of individual freedom and rights. This is clearly in direct opposition to the founding principles established in the Constitution.
Indeed, when examined as a whole, the Constitution repeatedly and forcefully establishes the supremacy of the individual over the government. The founders did not fear too little government, they feared too much government. They wrote extensively in the Federalist Papers about limiting the role of government, and promoting the liberty and rights of individuals over the state. The Bill of Rights doesn’t protect the government from the people; it protects the people from the government. The founders believed that individuals should be free to succeed or fail without interference from the government. They established liberty as the very foundation of our Republic. For socialism to be “successful”, on the other hand, it must restrict and ultimately eliminate individual liberty, since only through conformity and uniformity can socialism succeed.
Modern liberals believe that all of society’s problems stem from inequalities in relative socio-economic power. They perceive the “rich” to have an unfair advantage over the poor and middle classes, and this perceived class inequality is what motivates liberals to pursue their socialist goals. Every policy and position liberals assume is based on their need to address their perceptions of socio-economic inequality. Until there are no more rich and no more poor, the liberals and socialists of the world will not be happy. They believe that the reason some are poor is because some are rich, and that the way to raise-up the poor is by bringing down the rich. They forget the words of one of their favorite presidents, (JFK) who, when justifying a very large tax cut said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”
Conservatives, however, (like their Classic Liberal forefathers) seek to address socio-economic inequalities by bringing those on the lower rungs up through individual liberty and economic freedom and opportunity.
Penalizing the successful for simply being successful enslaves the poor and middle class to the State in that it is teaches that success is inherently evil. Not everyone will be successful, but instead of celebrating that success and finding ways to emulate it, liberals choose to despise it.
We are therefore presented with two philosophies on how our society should be governed: On the left we have the view that the rights of the State shall supercede those of the individual. On the right is the concept of individual liberty and the rights of the individual over those of the state. The left not only believes that you are not capable of succeeding on your own, they believe that if you do succeed without the help and “guidance” of the State then your success came at the cost of another’s failure, and for that you should be penalized.
Liberalism as known today is merely watered-down Socialism, wherein the ‘rights’ of society are promoted over the rights of the individual. Socialism (including its 1st cousins Communism and Fascism) places above all else the State. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”, is socialism’s creed, but this ‘workers paradise’ is paid for by abrogation of individual freedom and rights. This is clearly in direct opposition to the founding principles established in the Constitution.
Indeed, when examined as a whole, the Constitution repeatedly and forcefully establishes the supremacy of the individual over the government. The founders did not fear too little government, they feared too much government. They wrote extensively in the Federalist Papers about limiting the role of government, and promoting the liberty and rights of individuals over the state. The Bill of Rights doesn’t protect the government from the people; it protects the people from the government. The founders believed that individuals should be free to succeed or fail without interference from the government. They established liberty as the very foundation of our Republic. For socialism to be “successful”, on the other hand, it must restrict and ultimately eliminate individual liberty, since only through conformity and uniformity can socialism succeed.
Modern liberals believe that all of society’s problems stem from inequalities in relative socio-economic power. They perceive the “rich” to have an unfair advantage over the poor and middle classes, and this perceived class inequality is what motivates liberals to pursue their socialist goals. Every policy and position liberals assume is based on their need to address their perceptions of socio-economic inequality. Until there are no more rich and no more poor, the liberals and socialists of the world will not be happy. They believe that the reason some are poor is because some are rich, and that the way to raise-up the poor is by bringing down the rich. They forget the words of one of their favorite presidents, (JFK) who, when justifying a very large tax cut said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”
Conservatives, however, (like their Classic Liberal forefathers) seek to address socio-economic inequalities by bringing those on the lower rungs up through individual liberty and economic freedom and opportunity.
Penalizing the successful for simply being successful enslaves the poor and middle class to the State in that it is teaches that success is inherently evil. Not everyone will be successful, but instead of celebrating that success and finding ways to emulate it, liberals choose to despise it.
We are therefore presented with two philosophies on how our society should be governed: On the left we have the view that the rights of the State shall supercede those of the individual. On the right is the concept of individual liberty and the rights of the individual over those of the state. The left not only believes that you are not capable of succeeding on your own, they believe that if you do succeed without the help and “guidance” of the State then your success came at the cost of another’s failure, and for that you should be penalized.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Truth about the Bush Tax Cuts
There has been lots of discussion recently regarding how the Bush administration cut taxes “only for the wealthy”. A quick look at the facts shows how utterly fallacious these claims about “unfairness” really are:
According to the Tax Foundation, a family of four with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $40,000 saw a reduction in taxes under George Bush's plan of 96%, from $1,178 to $45, or $1,133 back in their pockets. Similarly, a family of four with and AGI of $50,000 realized a tax reduction of 42%, from $2,678 to $1,545, or $1,133.
Conversely, families of four with an AGI of $150,000 saw only a 10% reduction in taxes, from $22,878 to $20,632, or $2,247. For the record, the “richest” 5% of Americans had an AGI of over $127,000, and the “richest 1%” had AGI’s over $292,000.
So that family earning $150,000 did get a tax reduction in dollars almost double that of the family earning $40,000, but still paid over $19,000 MORE in taxes after the cut, or twelve times MORE than that $40,000 family!
One last thing, the Bush tax cuts effectively eliminated the income tax burden on a family of four earning less than $35,000.
You see for yourself here.
According to the Tax Foundation, a family of four with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $40,000 saw a reduction in taxes under George Bush's plan of 96%, from $1,178 to $45, or $1,133 back in their pockets. Similarly, a family of four with and AGI of $50,000 realized a tax reduction of 42%, from $2,678 to $1,545, or $1,133.
Conversely, families of four with an AGI of $150,000 saw only a 10% reduction in taxes, from $22,878 to $20,632, or $2,247. For the record, the “richest” 5% of Americans had an AGI of over $127,000, and the “richest 1%” had AGI’s over $292,000.
So that family earning $150,000 did get a tax reduction in dollars almost double that of the family earning $40,000, but still paid over $19,000 MORE in taxes after the cut, or twelve times MORE than that $40,000 family!
One last thing, the Bush tax cuts effectively eliminated the income tax burden on a family of four earning less than $35,000.
You see for yourself here.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
