Sunday, October 17, 2010

"Morning Papers" - Its Origins

The Rooster 

"Good night, the truth is sweet."

USA History that Reagan can take complete credit for.

The U.S. took millions of dollars from the weapons sale (click title to entry - thank you) and routed them and guns to the right-wing "Contra"² guerrillas in Nicaragua. The Contras were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction, following the July 1979 overthrow of strongman Anastasio Somoza Debayle and the ending of the Somoza family's 43-year reign.

...Republican committee member Dick Cheney, (click here) the White House's point man in containing the scandal, seizes on Casey's terminal illness to deflect questions about Casey's activities, telling one reporter, "I don't think it's fair for people to criticize the man based on speculation and innuendo, and to do it at a time when he is incapable of defending himself strikes me as in extremely poor taste." Interestingly, after Casey dies on May 6, 1987, the day after the hearings begin, Casey would become a convenient scapegoat for North and a convenient oubliette for the missing information that would have shed critical light on the scandal. Even though four CIA officials will eventually be charged with criminal offenses related to Iran-Contra, George H.W. Bush, Reagan's successor in the White House, will pardon three of them and block the prosecution of the fourth by refusing to declassify information needed for his defense....

...expanded in 1982 with the establishment of the Milken Family Foundation....(click here)


Companies that vanished: Drexel Burnham pays the price  (click here)

...Milken was feared by the business establishment,
and he had a contempt for the law. So he did himself in -- eventually agreeing to pay $650 million in fines and plead nolo contendere to six felonies -- three counts of stock parking and three counts of stock manipulation. Milken went to jail from March 1991 until January 1993. Drexel hemorrhaged capital; fired 5,000 people; and eventually filed for bankruptcy in 1990.

Deregulation is always credited to Reagan. However, it was begun under President Carter.

Carter Signs Airlines Deregulation Bill (click here)

Airline Deregulation Designed to Boost Competition

By Carole Shifrin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 25, 1978
President Carter yesterday signed into law a bill designed to increase competition among the nation's airlines by phasing out federal regulation.
The new law, supported by President Carter since the beginning of his term, gradually reduces the role of the Civil Aeronautics Board in the fare and route decisions of the airlines, and abolishes th CAB altogether at the end of 1984....

To make a long story short, (click title to entry - thank you) prohibition led to the dismantling of many small breweries around the nation. When prohibition was lifted, government tightly regulated the market, and small scale producers were essentially shut out of the beer market altogether. Regulations imposed at the time greatly benefited the large beer makers. In 1979, Carter deregulated the beer industry, opening  back up to craft brewers. As the chart below (here)  illustrates, this had a really amazing effect on the beer industry:

The truth of the matter is that Democrats are just as saavy regarding promoting Business and Commerce than any Republican.  Actually, considering how Carter was interrupted and looking to the success of Clinton, the Democrats are far better at producing an economy that significantly adds SUSTAINABLE jobs to the country. 
...Mike Parkhurst was a trucker turned reporter whose magazine, (click here) Overdrive, aspired to speak for the independent owner-operator; it was filled with exposés and editorials attacking the Teamsters union, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), and the maze of state and federal rules that befuddled and burdened the ordinary driver. In his magazine and in testimony before Congress, Parkhurst called for a sweeping deregulation of his industry, a push that culminated with the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. The new law, sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and signed by President Jimmy Carter, radically reduced the ICC’s authority, eliminating entry barriers, price controls, and other policies that had protected a cartel of carriers from competition. Before 1980, independent truckers had been limited to transporting farm commodities. Under the new rules, thousands of new firms flooded into the remainder of the industry, driving down prices for manufacturers and consumers alike....


The Tax Reform Act of 1986

On October 22, 1986 President Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Among its provisions, the law required that every dependent age 5 or older listed on a tax return had to have their own Social Security number. This new requirement doubled SSA's enumeration workload in the following year. White House photo. SSA History Archives.

The 1986 act reduced the number of INCOME TAX rates to two rates of 15 percent and 28 percent for most taxpayers, although a third rate of 33 percent was imposed on income within a certain upper-middle income bracket. Congress and the administration of President RONALD REAGAN believed a policy of low rates on a broad tax base would stimulate the economy.

Even President Reagan taxed the upper income brackets.  Hello?

This particular legislation at first marginally improved the USA GDP, but, actually cost the GDP 0.39 percent in the third and fourth year after it was enacted into law.  It was the law that had a .22 return after two years and only 0.01 percent after four.

If one recalls, the fiscal collapse of the investment banks occurred at THE END of 2008.  They didn't recover until 2009.  The losses were tax deductible thanks to Reagan.  So, the investment banks not only bank rolled The Bailout, they cost Americans even more when they reduced their tax burden due to severe losses in 2008.  In a way, Reagan provided 'the cushion' that would allow the investment banks to push the economy over the cliff to receive enough monies to restructure their debt and provided venture capital to investements outside the USA.
Bank deductions for bad debts. (click title to entry - thank you) From 1969 to 1986, for corporate income tax purposes banks could deduct from their income allocations to loan-loss reserves. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 allowed this practice to continue for banks with $400 million or less in total assets but larger banks were restricted to deducting only actual loan-loss charges during a given year.

Remember recently, the USA Chamber of Commerce was belly aching about the 1099 Form?

...“Today the Senate obstructed a measure (click title to entry - thank you) that would’ve prevented an avalanche of new paperwork for small business owners. Their refusal to recognize that small businesses will now be forced to spend precious time and resources reporting to the federal government rather than producing, growing, and creating jobs for Americans demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about the challenges facing this economy. In this economy, there is little defense for supporting oppressive regulations on small businesses that will hamper their ability to put people back to work.”...

The US Chamber of Commerce should not be surprised the Republicans OBSTRUCTED a pet project, because, it was President Reagan that instituted it in the first place.  For political purposes alone, Republicans are not about to change legislation they coveted in the first place.

The Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act (click here) was enacted into law in 1983 in order to repeal tax withholding requirements for interest and dividends paid and replace them with a system of backup withholding and information reporting....


Tax compliance law requires that all payers of interest or dividends supply payees with a 1099 information return that is simultaneously reported to the IRS. For U.S. citizens, a correct taxpayer identification number (TIN) must be supplied by the payee via form W-9....

Shazam. I knew there was at least on genuine genius in California.

ERTA. (click title to entry - thank you) A federal law that reduced income tax rates and provided incentives for business, including an adjustment to depreciation rates. It was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981. The law ultimately increased the federal budget deficit, and prompted some of ERTA to be reversed or reviewed in the TEFRA of 1982.
This was the grandstanding of President Reagan in his first year in office.

He was introducing The Economic Recovery Act of 1981 (ERTA).

This is the tax revision that COST the GDP 2.89 percent growth in four years time.  A NEGATIVE growth of the GDP was the result of ERTA.

But, Reagan knew how to make a big splash and it stopped the truth of his bumbling.

President Ronald Reagan signs the bill at Ranch del Cielo in 1981.

It was primarily this initial legislation that people remember as the 'revolution' that lowered their taxes.  From this moment forward, Reagan could do no "W"rong.

Rancho del Cielo, or "Sky's or Heaven's Ranch," is a 688-acre (1.075 sq mi) ranch located on the top of the Santa Ynez Mountains northwest of Santa Barbara, California. It was a vacation home for President Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan.

In addition to putting the federal infrastruture on a roller coaster from year to year, imagine what was transpiring in the business community from year to year.  One year business owners and operators had an accelerated 'depreciation rate.'  What would you do if all of a suddent you had the right to rapidly depreciate all kinds of equipment?  I know what I'd do.  I would purchase some equipment in anticipaiton of rapidly depreciation.  Well, imagine what would happen after only one year of such a 'tax break' and a business owner was stuck with expensive and slowly depreciating costs.  Not a good idea to put small businesses on a roller coaster.  It will put them out of business.  The purchases made under ERTA benefited Wall Street and no one else, in the long run.

President Reagan instituted "The Highway Revenue Act of 1982."

So, it isn't as though the voters of 1980 didn't get a tax hike under Reagan.  They did.  It just wasn't an increase in Income Tax. 

It was a five cent hike in the Federal Gasoline Excise Tax.

FIVE CENTS under Reagan. 

A 125% increase.

Why?  To improve the USA infrastructure and PUT Americans BACK TO WORK.

This is how government 'maintains' the USA infrastructure.  Don't like it, too bad.

I dont' want to hear how Democrats are doing anything any more extreme than past administrations of Republican leadership. 


Reagan wasn't even facing an economic collapse, but, a recession. 

...In 1982, (click title to entry - thank you) the Reagan Administration proposed an increase in the

federal gasoline tax for the purpose of improving and repairing the nation’s highways, based on the

user-fee nature of the tax.

Within the Administration, the fact that the tax was likely to create jobs was also considered as a

reason for the tax increase, although President Reagan did not support government-funded jobs

programs, or tax increases. The Reagan gasoline tax increase passed in both the House and the

Senate and was signed into law on January 5, 1983. It raised the federal tax from 4 cents per
gallon to 9 cents per gallon....

TEFRA of 1982. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982., It was the second tax act by Reagan.

TEFRA was federal tax legislation passed in 1982 that modified some aspects of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA). Both of these pieces of tax legislation took place during the Reagan Presidency. Investopedia explains Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act Of 1982 - TEFRA
The ERTA was a piece of tax legislation that greatly lowered income tax rates, and all very high rates were given a maximum of 50%. The TEFRA modified aspects of the ERTA which caused concern over potential large budget deficits. TEFRA increased the tax received but not the tax rates. This was done by removing some of the tax breaks businesses received in the ERTA, such as the increase in the amount of accelerated depreciation that a company could deduct.
That's right.  Reagan actually screwed up the economy before he fixed it, sort of.  Remember, Reagan was a chronic legislator of tax changes.  Kindly remember, everytime legislation is passed the 'infrastructure' of the government agencies has to be adjusted to accommodate the new laws.  So, every year, Reagan added to his own government deficit because of changes in the tax strucutre by the changes instituted to the infrastructure alone. 
Government is not suppose to be a 'game' so much as an expert analysis with decisive decisions.  It is why President Obama's legislation frequently becomes enacted 'over time.'  To enact radical changes in the government is costly and adds to the fiscal responsibiltiy of the citizens.  Candidates are suppose to be able to identify problems and lend their expertise to how they will solve it when elected.  It isn't suppose to be rhetorical to have 'a feel good feeling' for the vote you placed.  To my knowledge, sentiment never resulted in good government.
...So unemployment, (click here)which had been stable until Reagan cut taxes, soared during the 15 months that followed the tax cut; it didn’t start falling until Reagan backtracked and raised taxes....

Raised taxes by rolling back generous allowance on business. 

This clearly illustrates, reducing taxes on businesses (no matter the nature of those taxes) DOES NOT increase employment.  It takes government to be the equalizer. 

"The Daily Kos" already did a compare and contrast of the Reagan vs Obama years.

Reagan always claimed he inherited a recession when entering office.  If Reagan can say it, so can President Obama.  There was a recession at work on the USA economy in 1980.  "The Kos" (click here) makes the point that unemployment is directly related to a Presidential Approval rating.

To be noted, even though Reagan was instituting 'tax reform,' the unemployment rate at his inauguration was 7.5% and in November 1982 it was an ACTUAL double digit of 10.8%. 

The truth about Reagan's policies is that it catered to the wealthy and victimized the Middle Class and Poor.  That is what Republican economic priorities do.  They aren't really policies.  They are priorities.  That is very different than policy that will work for the majority of Americans. 

...The labor market, (click title to entry - thank you) which received its second jolt in as many years, was experiencing precipitous declines by the final quarter of 1981. The number of unemployed reached 9.6 million— 8.8 percent of the work force—by the end of the year. There were also large increases in the number of persons reporting discouragement over job prospects and the number still employed but reporting reduced workweeks.The entry at the title also explores a stark reality.  The recession of 1990, ten years later. The return of the Republicans in the number of years in power that do nothing but cater to wealth, followed by a Democratic President with an actual plan to increase the GDP of the USA and return the Middle Class to work.  Why don't the American people see this pattern and 'resolve' to stop it. 
Although by the end of 1981 total employment was near its year ago level, the pattern during the year was one of growth through spring, stagnation in the summer, and pronounced cutbacks at the end of the year. The percentage of the population employed was at a 4-year low by December....

See, it is about 'residual.'  Both economic and legislative residual.  Rather than 'stabilizing' the government and the economy, the American people continually put "The Party of Wealth" back in office as soon as the Democrats have rehabilitated the Middle Class.  It's hideous to realize the American people never learn their lessons about Republicans. 

Reagan's running mate in 1980 was Geoge H. W. Bush.  Think about this mess, will you all please?

Ronald Reagan did nothing but play with the Tax Structure of the USA for eight years.

The effect of the Reagan Tax Policies as they impacted the nation's GDP (Gross Domestic Product) over 2 and 4 year period after passage. 

Legislation                                       Percent after 2 years      Percent after 4 years

Economic Recovery Act of 1981               -1.91                          -2.89

Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsiblity         
      Act of 1982                                        0.80                           0.98   

Highway Revenue Act of 1983                   0.08                            0.09

Social Security Amendments of 1983          0.20                            0.21 

Interest and Divident Tax 
    Compliance Act of 1983                       -0.07                           -0.05

Deficit Reduction Act of 1984                    0.30                            0.39

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
      of 1985                                              0.04                            0.05

Tax Return Act of 1986                             0.22                            0.01

Omnibus Budget Reconsiliation
       Act of 1987                                       0.24                             0.28

TOTAL percent to GDP      -0.10                    -0.95

AT NO TIME, did Ronald Reagan ever have programs that improved the GDP of the USA.  As a matter of fact the propaganda is so 'tweeked' regarding Reagonomics that it refuses to look factually at the truth. 

Ronald Reagan continually toyed with the tax structure of the USA because the changes from the year before never solved the problems with deficits and national debt.

Under the Reagan Presidency it depended on whom you were as to whether the economy was actually beneficial.

At the end of his two terms in office, (click title to entry - thank you)  Ronald Reagan viewed with satisfaction the achievements of his innovative program known as the Reagan Revolution, which aimed to reinvigorate the American people and reduce their reliance upon Government. He felt he had fulfilled his campaign pledge of 1980 to restore "the great, confident roar of American progress and growth and optimism."...

Poverty and Recession go hand in hand. Obviously Economic Depressions produce poverty and not much else.

We have recently seen an increase in poverty in the USA.  That should be no surprise to most Republicans.  Under Ronald Reagan the poverty rate escalated and the issue of homelessness came to national attention.

Throughout the week, (click title to entry - thank you) Ronald Reagan has been praised almost non-stop on television, in newspapers and in magazines. Politicians and pundits from both establishment political parties have been practically falling over each other to heap praise on Reagan. And as he is glorified for what are termed his accomplishments and legacy, there is one term that was rose to prominence during Reagan’s time in power that is seldom mentioned. That is "homelessness."

...and following Bush/Cheney and the 2008 econoimc collapse.

...Meanwhile, (click here) millions of Americans are starting to wake up and are beginning to realize that we have very serious problems on our hands, but they have no idea what is causing our economic distress and they are unaware that most of our politicians have absolutely no idea how to fix the economic disaster that we have created....

The 'idea' that Ronald Reagan didn't invoke taxes is hideous. It is primarily a myth.

It's Sunday Night

"Taxman" by The Beatles

Let me tell you

How it will be.
There's one for you,
Nineteen for me,

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Should five percent
Appear too small,
Be thankful I don't
Take it all.

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

If you drive a car,
I'll tax the street.
If you drive to city,
I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold,
I'll tax the heat.
If you take a walk,
I'll tax your feet.


'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Don't ask me what I want it for,
(Uh-uh, Mr. Wilson.)
If you don't want to pay some more.
(Uh-uh, Mr. Heath.)

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

And my advice to
Those who die.
Declare the pennies
On your eyes.

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman,
And you're working for no one but me.

The Beatles’ original 1973 compilations, 1962-1966 (‘Red’) and 1967-1970 (‘Blue’) have been digitally remastered for worldwide CD release on October 18 (October 19 in North America).

Are the Democrats actually trying to protect the electorate? The Republicans simply aren't trustworthy.

No one is paying attention to the Veterans.  The Tea Party folks, like Buck here, wants to privatize the Veterans Administration, including, hospitals.

Some might say that is a great idea, but, that isn't what the Veterans are saying.

...In a state where we have 460,000 veterans, (click here)  with 4 major military installations heavily involved in two major wars (including the Colorado National Guard) the GOP nominee has yet to put out a single substantive statement on where he stands on National Security and Veterans issues.
Buck STILL does not have any comprehensive National Security or Veterans issues posted on his website, or as a press release. It's not surprising, since he JUST formed a Veterans advisory committee (consisting of ONE Veteran) and is still casting about for support from the veterans community. His first "Meet and Greet" with Veterans was Monday. No announcement of policy was made at that event.
Well, let me clarify that - he did suck up to the Tea Party by stating that he would privatize the VA:...

That is what these Tea Party candidates are like.  They talk out of both sides of their mouth.  Buck is very similar to Miller in Alaska.  In order to take the Republican Primary they took many, many extremist views and now that they are in the general election, they change their tune.  They have NO consistent positions across the board.

On the "Tea Party" website there is a line that states (click here): ANOTHER GOOD TOOL FOR VOTERS...

Sunday, October 17, 2010

When one click on " on the Tea Party website it takes one here: is ANOTHER GREAT TEA PARTY VOTERS WEBSITE & TOOL...

And when one clicks on it goes here:

Then click on Colorado (of course a voter has to know where Colorado is on the map) and then click on Ken Buck (click here).

Astoundingly, "On the Issues" does not cover Veterans' Benefits.  Big surprise, but, it covers many other issues.

What surprised me is that Ken Buck is like a BLANK SLATE.  That tells me a candidate has a lot to hide about his agenda after he is elected.

Ken Buck on Crime:

-----Fired for refusing to prosecute an unethical case. (Jul 2010)

...on drugs:
    No issue stance yet recorded by
...on education:

Federal research, but no federal requirements or funding. (Aug 2010)

That position makes no sense.  I have said it before.  There is no way any State, especially when it comes to education, should be abandoned to the needs of their children.  That is why there are federal programs that distribute funding on a federal basis.  Impoverished States need help n funding BASIC STUDIES for their children.  We know that.  It is why federal funding exists for education.  And this research mess is silly.  Why conduct federal research on education if legislators aren't going to do anything about it?  Perhaps for the States to use.  Tell me that makes sense.  Why put research out in publication for the States to read and be unable to fund changes.  It makes no sense.

...on energy:

Continue our traditional sources of energy. (Aug 2010)

There ya go.  No innovation.  No new economy.  No new employment.  Has this guy ever heard of "Peak Oil?"  No.  Allow me.  Peak Oil states we are currently at an all time high to the amount of oil to be pumped from any source where oil exists.  We know that is true because the petroleum industry is outrageous in their desperation about drilling 'deep water.'  We need our fisheries.  Why are we still USING OIL at all?  By the year 2050 there will be about 50 percent of the oil being pumped out because it no longer exists.  The 'idea' that oil and gas are appropriate with a warming planet is hideous, but, to completely disregard the REALITY there needs to be a paradigm shift by the fact we are running out of fossil fuels is moronic.  With his education, he is not that stupid.  However, he is manipulative enough to lie and state half truths to win an electoin.  Buck is like most of the other Tea Party candidates, they are labile and change their statements whichever way the wind blows.  He is manipulating the electorate and cannot be TRUSTED with the power of the Senate.

Cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures. (Jul 2010)

Setting my personal views aside, that statement about Cap and Trade is a lie.  We know that 'Carbon Exchanges' places high value on 'carbon sinks.'  Carbon sinks, such as rainforests and coral reefs have a dramatic effect on global temperatures.  So, therefore, Mr. Buck has no understanding about the Climate Crisis and is dangerous to trust.

Explore proven energy reserves; keep energy prices low. (Jul 2010)

The statement is invalid.  We know there are less and less energy reserves if Buck is referring to 'traditional' sources.  To believe as a natural resource becomes more and more sparse it will become less expensive is completely silly and contrary to any known economic theory of the market place.  In the not too distant future any energy created by oil and gas will become too expensive for anyone to afford.  Does he actually believe he can convince the electorate traditional energy sources are a bottomless pit with cheap costs?  If he does and that goes for anyone else; are lying.  It is just that simple. 

...on families and children, the environment, jobs, principles and values, technology and welfare and poverty.

No issue stance yet recorded by

Those are some of the most important issues for Republicans and he is shying away from them.  As a rule, Republicans are value voters.  And to not state what his position is on these issues is a slap in the face to any Value Voter out there. 

Ken Buck, regardless of his education, is qualified to lead and certainly not in the Senate. 

His website has even less information on his position and has nothing but rhetorical references.  It is nothing but rhetorical and attempts to manipulate the electorate based on 'sentiment.'  VAGUENESS is a definite 'strategy' by this candidate.  There is no way anyone in Colorado can state they really understand his positions. 

I am proud of my son Cody, (click here) a fourth year cadet at West Point. The contributions made by all the men and women who serve in the military around the world so we can enjoy our freedoms at home will always be reflected in my priorities.
I will fight for a strong national defense and to ensure our military members, veterans and their families receive the benefits and care they have earned.

HOW?  How is Buck going to '...fight for a strong national defense and to ensure...(they) receive the benefits and care they have earned.  HOW? 

A campaign's website should be the place where a candidate has in depth information for the electorate, not simply more rhetoric.  Do voters actually know what to demand from their candidates?  I don't believe they do.  SPECIFICS and how that will effect the nation.  That's what I want to know.  I want to know exactly whom I am voting for.  I am tired of the electorate being treated like 'mindless puppets' by the Republicans.