I choose to live in the real world of “fact and history” rather than the world of “theory and speculation”. Liberalism espouses a belief that without an Orwellian type Big Brother overlord (aka The US Federal Government); the people of America are simply incapable of reaching out a helping hand to those in need.
The facts of history attest just the opposite to be true. One example is the great flood of Dayton, Ohio in 1913; the worst flood in the history of Ohio. Not a single federal dollar was spent to rebuild Dayton. But, it happened.
It happened because Americans care about their neighbors, including the rich businesses who donated millions of dollars in supplies and materials to rebuild Dayton. The national Democrat Party (the home of liberal thought) is the greatest encumbrance to the development and expansion of small businesses across the land.
Think about it. When liberals go after the rich, evil corporations; how do they do it? Through taxation of products produced OR through increased regulatory oversight. The net effect is that it makes it more costly for those corporations to do business in America. So, they either move off shore, or they simply raise the price of their goods to offset their increases in costs. The persons penalized become the employee and the consumer; not the corporations.
Now consider the small business man. He can’t afford the costs of additional taxes on the products he produces and he can’t move his operations offshore. He can’t afford the costs of another, endless series of studies, permits, and government regulators interfering into his daily operations. So, what does he do … he closes up shop. So, the net effect of increased taxation and regulation is specifically and most effectively destroying the small businesses not the big ones!
When private property rights (something we used to protect in America) are honored, and government intervention is minimal; small businesses flourish, create jobs and grow. Some even grow enough to become competitive with the big businesses. This in turn, drives the costs of goods and services down; preventing inflation, promoting entrepreneurship and creating more general prosperity.
Case in point; I’ve worked in coal mining most of my adult life. In the 1970s, a handful of men could pool their money together and go into the coal mining business for a few thousand dollars. Many of these men became very wealthy as a reward of taking a risk, working hard and learning the financial lessons that create wealth. Along the way they created hundreds of jobs; all without one dime of government assistance.
Today, forty years later, these people do not exist. Not because the entrepreneur spirit is gone, but because the government has made it all but impossible for it to happen. How? A mining permit used to be obtained in a matter of a few weeks for less than $10,000. Today, that same permit will cost well over $1,000,0000 and take years to obtain … if ever; and even then, Big Brother can step in and revoke it!
What is the single factor that is different today than in the 1970s? The US Federal Government growth promoted and encouraged by the Democrat Party is the only difference. Less government equals more freedom and prosperity; more government means less freedom and less prosperity; you choose. It really is that simple.
Gary Lee Corns
Logan
He was just as invovled in the Whitewater land deal as Hillary was.
Who said anything about Carter and Mondale? Your mixing apples and oranges.
Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath to a federal grand jury, over his having sex with an intern his daughter's age inside the White House. It had nothing to do with Whitewater. That was Hillary's scandal. Honestly, are you kidding? Whitewater?
Sure, FDR did what he had to do, just as Reagan did what he had to do. FDR sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler. That is the point; if you recognize context for FDR, be consistent and fair and objective and recognize it for what it was during Reagan's terms.
Stand all you want, fact is fact; the 1980 election was a drubbing for Jimmy Carter, the 1984 election was a mega-drubbing of Carter's VP Mondale; over 500 electoral votes for Reagan, only 13 for Mondale.
So called smartness has nothing to do with it; ACCURACY does. You are inaccurate in your information.
Talk about not knowing your facts. Clinton was impeached by the House. He was acquitted by the Senate. It had to do with the Whitewater land deal.
FDR was trying to defeat Japan. Remember, they bombed Pearl Harbor?
I stand on my previous post and especially the last sentence about Reagan's rating as President.
I may not be as smart as you think you are, but I'm smart enough and I can be fair and objective. You try to explain away Republicans wrongs.
Thanks for proving me right.
You refer to me as a hateful because I idnetify ideologies which have their roots in Marxism, Communism and Socialism ... which have in large part been taken into the Democrat party platform. This is undeniable fact. If that is what you call name calling, so be it.
Thanks also for showing that you don't have the courage to identify yourself openly.
Thanks for establishing that you won't answer my previous questions because they can't be answered. Obama put forth NO PLAN for dealing with the debt ceiling. The Democrats have not agreed to any specific cuts in spending but have instead made a vague commitment to doing it over the next ten years! Boy that is satisfying to my heart!
But, I have to hand it to you. It appears the liberal Democrats have won again. The Republican party still has too many cowards in it to take a stand and not budge.
Congratulations on passing off our present day, irresponsible spending practices to my grandchildren. I know they will appreciate it!
As for your name, you put that on each one of your letters you send to the editor. People have long known who you are and where you are from. Nothing new there.
The opinions that I gave to the President's Chief of Staff was indeed relayed to him. I also made my opinions known to certain Republicans and Democrats in the House. I'm a doer, not a complainer.
If I wanted my name and address known, I would put it on here.
As for you questions, no I will not answer them. I told you I don't play games.
You have judged the Democratic party just because it is not your party. Your judgments and unkind words are harsh. He will show you where you are in violation of His will. And, if you aren't smart enough, or honest enough to know when you have stepped on His toes, He will let you know.
I have read and I do read the Bible. I do go to church and I know full well that God is not just a God of love but He is also a God of wrath.
Gary can only spout rhetoric, propaganda, demagoguery and conjecture.
I can only beleive that he gets his information from the Fox's network, always beating a dead horse, over, over and over again.
Conservative/Republicans do the same political methods over and over, with the same results, failure, this is called insanity.
How can U.S. citizen keep putting insane people into public office to do a sane job.
It boggles the mind.
Sure, we did export to Iraq; when Iraq was at war with Iran, we sided with Iraq. If you knew history, then you would remember that FDR also sent a bazillion dollars of war material to Uncle Joe Stalin in the USSR. What did the USSR become? The greatest tyrant in history, built by FDR?
Context, folks, is crucial. FDR was trying to beat Hitler; Reagan was trying to control Iran. When you do not know nor understand history, you get comments like the ones by Patrick.
Baloney, utter thick sliced baloney. We were in recession in 1992, that was 4 years AFTER Reagan left office, and also AFTER Bush broke his promise and signed the liberal tax cuts into law. Honestly, this is absurd. You have to be kidding?
The party in the White House generally ALWAYS suffers in the first mid-term; GW Bush was a recent exception, he picked up seats. Clinton suffered 50 losses in 1994; Barack BooHoover Obama suffered historic, record losses in 2010.
(You are easy)
Yeah, yeah, don't forget, Reagan snuck over into the park at night and stole pork and beans from the homeless.
Ratings? Really? Ratings??? Reagan won the 1984 election with over 500 electoral votes and 49 states. Mondale only one won state, his own.
Good grief, man, you are goofy.
A Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. This was done during Reagan's administration.
Reagan's tenure left successor George H.W. Bush with an economy so impacted that he faced two recessions and a deficit so crushing that Bush had to go back on his own famous promise, "Read my lips. No new taxes." The reversal cost Bush the Presidency but also helped to right the economy after he left.
Reagan's out-of-the-gate policies were so popular and successful at the time that Republicans lost 26 seats in the 1982 Congressional election
In his eight years in office the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to become its largest debtor nation.
Reagan removed restrictions that prevented mortgage companies from lending to homeowners without them putting down a significant amount first. This led directly to the subprime mortgage fiasco.
Reagan deregulated the financial sector allowing them free reign to gamble with our money. This allowed the savings and loan scandal of the late 80's, the hedge fund troubles and today's financial meltdown as only these changes allowed for the creation of credit default swaps, etc.
Iran-Contra, the secret and illegal selling of weapons to our sworn enemy, Iran, to then fund the Contras, was both a constitutional disaster and a foreign policy blunder about which we were asked to believe Reagan knew nothing.
Fabrication, lying, cruel and counterproductive policies at home and abroad, bloating of the deficit, widening the gap between rich and poor: These are the Reagan legacy. As Republican candidates seek to wear his mantle, their Democratic opponents need to remind Americans exactly what they are putting on.
Reagan's approval rating for his entire presidency was lower than Kennedy’s, Eisenhower’s and even Johnson’s, and at times he was one of the most unpopular presidents in recent history.
Saint Reagan? NO WAY!!
1. Can you show me specifically where I have ever called anyone a name?
2. It is quite impressive that you've given your ideas to the President's COS. But how does that help us?
3. Why won't you specifically answer my previous questions?
4. Can you share your actual name and address? It appears you want to clearly tell someone who I am and where I live. How about you? Do you have the courage to do that?
5. As to my Christianity and my relationship with Jesus Christ. I will be and am judged by Him and His Word. If you can show me where I am in violation of His will, I will ask His forgiveness and any whom I've offended. I would just like to remind you that Jesus was NOT a soft spoken whimp. He called evil by its name ... evil! And he wasn't ashamed to do so.
You and I can go back and forth til the cows come home and the chickens roost, and it won't change a thing. You're spitting in the wind.
You, and a few others on here, do nothing but agitate, stir up discord, insult and call names. You use this space just for those purposes. It isn't just that the President is a Democrat, it is more that he is half-black. That is what it is all about with you all.
As far as we have come in this country, there are still those who want to hold back people of color and mistreat them. Before he was even elected there were those who started questioning where he was born. Then it was that he is a Muslim, which he isn't. Now, it is his social security card and where it was issued and how many he has. It is as clear as it can be what those motives are about. Where is the end to all this stupidity?
And you get on here and talk about God and call yourselves Christians. I can call myself anything I want but if I want to be known as that, then I have to live it and be it. Your posts on here don't say that about you. It says the exact opposite.
Federal spending ballooned with a democrat controlled House and Senate, exactly as it has done in our time. President's do not formulate budgets, Congress does. Reagan never had a line item veto.
So Abe Lincoln was better? Really? Throwing political opponents into prison, without trial or lawyer; expelling political opponents from the country; shutting down opposition press in wartime; censoring press in wartime; raising an army to subjugate fellow American states; and you liberals whine about George W. Bush.
Reagan was the first American president of the post WW2 period to properly identify the Soviet Union as an evil empire. He broke with Nixon and decades of the American policy of detente, by calling for the end of the Soviet Union, instead of coexisting with it. He challenged communism all over the world. You are uneducated to say Reagan had nothing to do with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Reagan did have a full plate to deal with. When he began his term, he faced Stagflation; Jimmy Carter's Misery Index; double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, and double digit interest rates. All had significantly dropped by 1989. Reagan's years saw the creation of 25 million jobs, and the longest post war expansion in recent American history.
Reagan's record stands; he was a world changer; that is why, when Barack BooHoover Obama gets into trouble or wants to be taken seriously, he always cites Ronald Wilson Reagan.
No one has said a word about "grand untested hopes." Those are your words. Take ownership for what you put on here and don't try to put it off on anyone else. In case you haven't figured it out yet, there are more than a few of us posting on here that will not put up with your one-sided, incorrect posts.
Your attitude that if you say it it must be so doesn't jell with me. I deal in truth and facts, not mean, unkind and untruths jsut because I didn't vote for someone or like the color of their skin.
I am smart enough to know that if my bankbook shows that I don't have money enough to pay for something I don't need my banker or anyone else to tell me that. That is a stupid question to ask someone.
Your trying to convince people that Democrats believe in Darwin's theory of evolution rather than the almighty, true and living God is absurd, idiotic, and ridiculous. But, it goes along with if you say it it must be so thinking.
Before anything can be settled, it takes two, whether it is two people or two parties. You have to want to fix or settle something before it can be done. Thus far, the Republicans have been playing silly games. They ask for something and when they get it, they come back and raise the ante. You need to tell your conservative friends to stop playing their games.
You talk about God in your posts. Remember the scripture in the Bible where God says He hates lying lips? I do. You don't fool Him.
I would keep in mind if I were you that He knows everything there is to know about Gary Lee Corns in Logan, WV, and you have never and will never fool Him. Do you really think He's political? He isn't.
You guys always live up to your reputation. You speak in vague, generalities about grand untested hopes. But when it comes to putting facts and plans to paper, you fail to deliver.
I asked two simple questions; 1. What specific cuts have the Dems agreed to; and 2) Please direct me to where I can read about the President's plan.
Rather than answer those questions, you call them silly and childish. Such is the way of liberals. All rhetoric and name calling, but no substantive debate.
I wonder, do you approach your own checkbook in the same way? When the banker asks you for specific numbers to support your home or auto purchase, do you call him silly?
We've learned long ago that words like "cooperation" and "bipartisanship" are euphemisms for "surrender".
No thanks, we've surrendered too often, believing that the libs would deliver a fix later ... as so often promised. No more.
If Obama and the left don't like our plan of Cut Spending, Cap Future Spending and require a Balanced Budget going forward, then SHOW US YOUR PLAN?
The reason they haven't offered a plan is because it doesn't fit with their "government is God" religion. To the left, they should hold all wealth and be permitted to use it according to the dictates of their elitist beliefs.
Moseby, America has had enough of this insanity. Either put forth a plan that Americans can read and understand (unlike Obamacare) or sit down and let the adults take over.
No nation ever spent itself into prosperity. Do you?
But, maybe if the Republicans would cooperate with the Democrats then the President could focus on other things.
He was not the world changing President you think he was and you think that just because he was a Republican like you. He was better than some but not near as good as you portray. Abraham Lincoln was far better.
Reagan had nothing to do with communism ending in the former Soviet Union. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a major victory for the people in Russia and the repressed states, but Reagan's sabre-rattling kept it alive several years after it was obviously dead.
According to Department of Labor statistics
during Ronald Reagan's administration (1981-1989) the unemployment rate reached 10.8 percent. In fact, there were 10 straight months that it was 10.1 percent or higher. Although unemployment has been high during Obama's term, it hasn't come close to matching Reagan's numbers yet.
Politicians can make all the promises they want when they campaign but when they get in office, it is another matter.
Reagan was no conservative ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. He raised taxes eleven times and he nearly tripled the Federal budget deficit.
If Reagan was "tricked" into raising taxes eleven times, what does that say for him?
Reagan promised to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending, but federal spending ballooned under him. And the list goes on.
My point you may ask. Everyone of us is flawed in some way or another. But, when you overlook those flaws or excuse them because that person is your friend or in your political party, then you cease to be objective and truthful.
Two simple questions:
1. What specific cuts in federal spending have the Democrats agreed to?
2. Where can I read the details of the President's budget plan for the immediate debt ceiling issue before us?
To my knowledge and use of the internet, I don't believe either of these things exist!
The President has offered no specific plan for cutting spending or reducing the power of Washington.
The Dems continue to shamelessly lie to the elderly by declaring that the Ryan budget or the Cut, Cap & Balance Plan will cut Social Security and Medicare. Neither plan does this.
Ryan's plan doesn't effect anyone over the age of 50. But, of course this fact is ignored by the left.
Obama says he can't guarentee that SS checks will go out on August 3. Again, an outright lie. There is enough money in the monthly income to cover SS, the debt service, Medicare every IMPORTANT issue with another 40 billion left over!
If SS checks aren't mailed out, it will only be because Obama chooses to not issue them.
By the way, I though the Dems "assured" us years ago that SS was protected in a "lock box" they set up? I guess they forgot and gave the key to Obama.
There is only one Social Security card issued to the President. The claim that Social Security numbers beginning with 042 are reserved for Connecticut residents is false. The first 3 digits are assigned by geographical region. The Social Security card issued to Barack H. Obama was issued by the State of Hawaii.
President Obama has made his Certificate of Live Birth available and many people still will not accept it. Why should he make everything anybody wants to know about him public when they will not accept it? If he is not a citizen of the United States, then all those Mexican, El Salvadorian, Guatemalan, and children of parents from other countries born here are not either. The women who come across the Rio Grande to have their child in the U.S. do so so that child will be a U.S. citizen. And, when that child grows up, he or she can sponsor their parents to be citizens.
To the point, there are those who do not like and will not accept the fact that the President is half-black. And, the fact that he is a Democrat and half-black just compounds it for a lot of people.
It is very much like what is going on on the Hill right now. The Republicans keep asking for cuts in the budget and when the Democrats agree to them then the Republicans come back and ask for more. Then the Republians tell the press a different story as to why nothing is settled.
I do remember the Soviet Union; I don't know how old you are, but many of the young people living today have no memory of the Soviet Union. Why?
Many more do not remember a term that had to be invented to describe Jimmy Carter's term as president; stagflation, or perhaps it was the misery index, either way, you get the point. What changed?
After Vietnam, in the late 1970s, when morale in the USA was at an all time low, and confidence in the USA was way down, we were essentially the world's doormat. Iran took our citizens hostage, flipped Jimmy Carter off, and dared him to do anything about it; the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, fomented revolution, murder, and terror all over the world, but especially in Central America. What changed?
In January, 1981, when the new president took office, he faced double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates. The nation was a wreck. What changed?
Eight years later, or maybe 9, the Berlin Wall was being beaten to death by sledge hammer wielding German citizens; the Soviet Union, stood by and watched. Almost unbelievable, in light of the Prague Spring and decades of horrible tyranny. The American economy rebounded and created over 25 million jobs; the growth was record breaking. The USA, once again, led the world; we were feared, respected, and prosperous.
True, Reagan built up the military, but, he faced down the worst tyrannical dictatorship in history. True, he was tricked into raising taxes, once, due to being promised commensurate spending cuts would happen, but, as he learned, liberals are liars and they never cut spending.
I could go on and on about the record breaking, WORLD changing presidency of Ronald Reagan, but I don't need to. You do it for me; by the very fact that once again, when a liberal wants to justify their current clueless boob of a president, they go back and bring up the great Ronald Reagan, who, BTW, won 49 of 50 states in 1984, including WV.
The president who campaigned the loudest on a "reduce government" platform was a big hypocrite. Reagan increased federal non-military personnel by 238,000 workers, and increased the federal workforce including the military by 324,000 workers. The federal workforce almost reached its peak at the end of Reagan's presidency (1988) with 5.289 million workers (including military), then peaked during the first year of George H.W. Bush's presidency at 5.292 million.
Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both increased the size of the bureaucracy, whether or not you count military personnel. Reagan increased the non-military workforce by 238,000 employees, and the federal workforce including military personnel by 324,000. George W. Bush increased the non-military workforce by 53,000 employees, and the federal workforce overall by 77,000.