AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Once the population figures out that Obama is not a centrist Democrat, but is the most liberal leftist virtual Commie Democrat that has ever been in office, the voters should sweep anyone out of Congress that has supported any of Obama's destructive policies.

When exactly do you figure this is going to happen, Okie?
Cycloptichorn

Why Has Parker Griffin changed to the Republican Party? His party is currently in the Majority in Congress along with a radical leftist Democrat in the White House. Perhaps those who consider themselves Democrats/Progressives/Liberals would indulge us with an answer.

How hard is this to understand? He is from a very conservative district, and had commissioned a poll which showed that he would lose if he ran as a Democrat. Do not confuse self-preservation with some sort of indication of a shift in our country's politics.

Your inability to understand that there are many different, and valid, forms of Conservatism will be the downfall of your party. It's as if you don't realize that your 'Conservatives With Deep Principles' - what is it with you guys and acronyms, anyway? - represent a small segment of the country, no more than 20% or so. If you cannot find ways to make meaningful alliances with those who are not exactly ideologically like yourselves, you will be doomed to failure every time.

You essentially admit that this, along with Griffin’s is validated only by some kind of right of self presevation. If so, given the context, this conclusion implies a right to hold congressional office

Indeed on the other side of the aisle should liberals trust Spector?

aSo we MACs must present our case intelligently and clearly and in a focused manner that choses a select few issues.

A good example is the governor’s race in Virginia where the victor defined and hammered on two issues the electorate was concerned about: expanding government intrusion into their lives and its ever increasing deficit spending. Interestingly, the loser in that race, unlike Corzine in Jersey (property taxes), tried to distance himself from the Obama Admin. They still both lost.

I believe that rigid adherence to those conservative economic principles that concern the electorate is the key to success in the upcoming midterms.

...Ladies and Gentlemen,

Who could have guessed on Nov. 4, 2008, that the mood this Christmas would be so festive? Yet a feeling of optimism pervades as we watch the old Christmas movies and marvel at the winter wonderland on the Mall illuminated by our national Christmas tree. (No offense to that ardent Catholic Nancy Pelosi, who would prefer “holiday tree.”)

The Republicans, of course, got exactly what they deserved in 2006 and 2008 mainly because they acted like Democrats. Deficit spending and sex scandals are not a good recipe for success.

But by forcing through a government takeover of health care, the auto industry and the banks, the president and his Congressional henchmen have brought us in a time machine to Russia 1917. These massive changes have been done in secret and along bullying, straight party-line votes.

It is stunning to watch rich lawmakers driving their own expensive cars off the cliff and signing on to such a socialist agenda. In dismissing the tea parties and pushing through plans the American people obviously don’t want, they have made the fatal disconnect between the representatives and the represented.

President Obama continues life in the H.O.V. lane, fawned over by the press and the crowned heads of Europe. In between apologies, the president should have reminded those pompous blowhards that without our interference, they would all be speaking German.

My dad was a D.C. policeman, and I would like to apologize (not “recalibrate”) to the Cambridge police for the president’s assumption that they “acted stupidly.” You would think that Mr. Obama would have afforded the police the same consideration he gave to the mass-murdering Muslim Army major when he said: “I would caution against jumping to conclusions.”

The Fort Hood massacre was a direct result of Army policy too concerned with political correctness and “celebrating diversity.” It was a terrorist attack by any definition and the government still cannot say it.

President Obama should remember that Icarus tried to fly to the sun because, as he said, “it is the only thing in the universe that can match my brilliance.” How did that work out?

Here are some reflections for 2009:

To President Obama: Thank you for saving the Republican Party and for teaching all of us that too much of anything is a bad thing.

To Bill Clinton: You did too much work on Northern Ireland for the Nobel committee. Next time, do nothing.

To Harry and Nancy: “The Twilight Zone” once had an episode where the town got the exact opposite of what it wanted. Farewell, Harry!

To John McCain: Thank you for your chivalry in banning Palin attack dogs " including my sister " from the campaign plane.

To Sarah Palin: Keep up the good work. Anyone who annoys Keith Olbermann that much is a friend to all of us.

To Glenn Beck: Thanks for being the only journalist interested in stories that used to win Pulitzer Prizes.

To Al Franken: So, 250 years of Senate tradition trashed. Stuart Smalley would have done better.

To Desirée Rogers: Get back to the gate. Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson can’t get in.

To the Salahis: Thank you for showing us that shame has no bottom.

To Valerie Jarrett: So much for the Olympic Village in Chicago. Whoops.

To Chris Dodd: The only thing lower than your polls is your mortgage interest rate.

To Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen: The military should be more interested in the men and women who serve than in celebrating diversity.

To the Democratic senators: Go last next time; the bribes are much bigger.

To Sheldon Whitehouse: You, senator, are an idiot.

To Dick Cheney: You, sir, are a patriot. Thanks for firing back.

To President Bush: Thank you for your dignity. Did you really start the plague in the 14th century? Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

To Hillary: Who knew how much you would be missed?

To Al Gore: A global warming conference in the middle of a Copenhagen blizzard is not a good visual.

To Max Baucus, Eliot Spitzer and John Edwards: Party on, dudes.

To John Ensign, Mark Sanford and David Vitter: Don’t party on, dudes.

As my brother Kevin headed off to Christmas Eve Mass in the Maryland suburbs, I asked him how he thought the first year of Barack Obama had gone.

He didn’t have to pray long over that one. “Fine,” he replied, “if you like unmitigated disasters like the Hindenburg and the Redskins season.”

If it’s Christmas, it must be time for my conservative brother to take over my column and turn it a blazing shade of red.

So without further ado, here is Kevin unplugged, offering a perspective from “the real America,” as one of his favorite Republican philosophers, Sarah Palin, likes to put it:

If you want better job opportunities for yourself, then vote for those who would CUT taxes on the rich.

Really, it's all very simple.

If you want others to be FORCED to share their lawfully earned wealth with you, then vote for Liberal Democrats.

If you do not want to be FORCED to share your own lawfully earned wealth with anyone, then vote for Conservative Republicans.

If you want better job opportunities for yourself, then vote for those who would CUT taxes on the rich.

If you want worse job opportunities for the rich, then vote for those who would RAISE taxes on the rich.

Was Job Creation the Real Intent of Federal Tax Cuts?
By Jon Shure

When trying to figure out if something worked, sometimes it helps to go back and look at the reasons why it was done.

If, for example, you said it was necessary to go to war against a country because it had weapons of mass destruction and it later turned out there were no such weapons, well, that would be something to take into consideration. Or if you said you wanted to overhaul Social Security because its survival was at stake and it was really the case that there was no crisis at all.

It's the same with the federal income tax cuts. The official reason they were undertaken was to create jobs and improve the economy. We know this for the simple reason that the tax cuts have a name: the "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003."

When the rate reduction package became law in July 2003, the people who supported it did not shrink from bold predictions about how many more people would be working as a result of the wonderful things it would do. The president's Council of Economic Advisors (hint: do not hire this group to help you with your family finances if you want to stay afloat) said that by the end of 2004 the nation would see the creation of 5.5 million jobs. To be perfectly fair, the CEA actually said back in 2003 that with no policy change there would be 4.1 million new jobs and the extra added kick from tax cuts would create another 1.4 million. But it still adds up to 5.5 million.

We can afford to be charitable here because, no matter how you look at it, the economic advisors' crystal ball was as accurate as predicting the Knicks would be NBA champs. Actually, you could argue that the Knicks will come closer, because total job growth nationwide was just 3.1 million. If you want to be happy with that number, go ahead. But it's awfully hard to make the case that we needed tax cuts if they so miserably failed to deliver on their promises. (one apparent advantage of politics over sports: George Bush got to keep his job; Lenny Wilkens didn't)

If it's any consolation, New Jersey did better than most places. Over the 18 months from July 2003 to the end of 2004, the state became home to 107,000 new jobs. But if the tax cuts had been what they were cracked up to be, you could have tacked on another 54,000. A note on methodology here: we know this because the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute crunched the numbers and came up with a formula for calculating how many of the 5.5 million new jobs each state ought to have expected. As it happened, only Hawaii and Wyoming met the targets.

Pennsylvania did worse than New Jersey. Its job-creation projection was 171,000 and only 45,500 materialized, for a shortfall of 126,000. In fact, Pennsylvania is one of 29 states where the number of people employed at the end of 2004 was actually lower than when the last recession began in March 2001. New Jersey just missed being in that dubious group, having seen 2 percent job growth during those 45 months. But even that isn't as good as it sounds. During that same period, New Jersey's working age population actually grew by 3.4 percent. If job growth kept up with population growth, another 56,000 persons would be working in the state.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]

1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]

1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%

1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH 41 1989-1993]

1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%

1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]

2001- 2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1%

2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6% [BUSH 43 2001-2009]

2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
HISTORY OF TOTAL USA EMPLOYMENT 1980 - 2009

....Total USA Employed.....Change
Carter
1980…… 99,302,000………….. + 7,285,000
Reagan
1984….. 105,005,000…………...+ 5,703,000
Reagan
1988….. 114,968,000…………...+ 9,963,000
Bush I
1992….. 118,492,000…………...+ 3,524,000
Clinton
1996….. 126,708,000…………...+ 8,216,000
Clinton
2000….. 136,891,000…………...+ 10,183,000
Bush II
2004….. 139,252,000…………...+ 2,361,000
Bush II
2008….. 145,362,000…………...+ 6,110,000
Obama
As of October 2009 ....138,275,000.........- 7,087,000

Lower taxes for the wealthy just transfer wealth upwards where is stagnates.

This just doesn't make sense. Do you have some weird distorted view of the world where the rich are the ones struggling? Struggling to what? Have a job? Stay rich? That's called an argument from entitlement.

T
K
O