Obama '08?

On one hand you argue that the democrats are to blame if they don't rescind the policies of a previous administration.

Now you argue the democrats don't get credit if they do rescind the policies of a previous administration.

I suppose you could rewrite US law, but I doubt the courts will.

No case of which we are aware, nor any to which we have been referred, holds that, without resort to the traditional means of effective protection of a defendant's right to a fair trial, i.e., voir dire, change of venue, continuance, pretrial publicity has been so inflammatory and prejudicial that a fair trial is absolutely precluded and an indictment should be dismissed without an initial attempt, by the use of one or more of the procedures mentioned, to see if an impartial jury can be impanelled. In Wansley v. Slayton, 487 F.2d 90 (4 Cir. 1973), we expressed confidence in the efficacy of voir dire examination as a protection against prejudicial publicity. There we concluded that the combination of (1) a lapse of time between prejudicial publicity and trial, and (2) an extensive and skillful voir dire examination of jurors was sufficient to overcome the prejudice created when a black defendant charged with raping three white women was given widespread, intensive prejudicial pretrial publicity, including a report that he had confessed to the authorities and had retraced his trail of crime. Of course in the instant case, the factor of governmental misconduct in initiating prejudicial pretrial publicity is greater than it was in Wansley; but this is a distinction, for present purposes, largely without a difference, since the outcome of the case, as we see it, depends upon whether fairness to defendants may still be accomplished and not whether misconduct of the government warrants punishment which also forfeits the rights of society. United States v. Milanovich, 303 F.2d 626 (4 Cir. 1962), cert. den., 371 U.S. 876, 83 S.Ct. 145, 9 L.Ed.2d 115 (1962).

So, you are now arguing that letting the max tax go back to 39.6% will be OK?

You blamed the Dems for the coming increase in taxation, passed by a GOP congress and signed by Bush.

Are you blaming Reagan for the max tax going up to 39.6% under Clinton?

Second Stimulus, Same as the First
from Morning Bell: Posted By Conn Carroll On February 5, 2010 @ 9:46 am In Enterprise and Free Markets | 15 Comments
When President Barack Obama was sworn into office, the U.S. economy employed 134.6 million people and the unemployment rate stood at 7.6% [1]. In response to growing job losses, President Obama passed an $862 billion stimulus plan [2] that his economic experts promised would help the United States employ at least 138.6 million people by 2010. Reality has not been kind to President Obama’s hope. Today, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics released its monthly jobs report [3] showing the U.S. economy shed another net 20,000 jobs, leaving only 129.5 million jobs, almost 10 million short of the President’s promises.
Anticipating this bleak job news, the President announced [4] in his State of the Union address last week: “That is why jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.” It is understandable why the President wants to call this new legislation a “jobs bill” instead of what it really is: his second stimulus. But that would mean admitting that his first stimulus completely failed, which both the objective evidence [5] and the opinion of the American people [6] show it indeed has.
And why did the President’s first stimulus fail? For the same reason his second stimulus is destined to fail: Only the private sector in pursuit of opportunity can create jobs on net. The best we can hope from government is that it keeps to a minimum the jobs it prevents and the income and wealth it destroys [7].
And the specific policies being talked about on Capitol Hill for this second round of stimulus are particularly pernicious. The $5,000 tax credit for any business that hires a new worker not only does not create any incentive for already-struggling companies to begin hiring, it could even result in some currently unemployed individuals remaining unemployed until the tax credit is passed into law, or similarly, some companies firing some workers and then re-hiring once the tax credit is passed into law [8].
The President’s TARP-funded government-subsidized loans for small businesses are also terrible policy. Besides the fact that unspent TARP funds ought to be used to pay down the deficit, the Small Business Administration has a terrible record of effectively allocating capital to the private sector [9].
There is one sector of the economy that is thriving under President Barack Obama: government. This week, the Obama administration announced that the number of government employees will grow to 2.15 million this year [10], topping two million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over.” And today, USA Today reports [11] “the lobbying industry is humming along in the nation’s capital” as the top 20 trade associations and companies increased their lobbying expenses by 20% in 2009. ConocoPhillips spent $18.1 million dollars lobbying Congress in 2009, up from $8.5 million the year before, while it also laid off 1,300 people.
This is a perfect example of what happens to an economy when government becomes “the focus” of job creation. Jonathan Rauch explains: “Economic thinkers have recognized for generations that every person has two ways to become wealthier. One is to produce more, the other is to capture more of what others produce. … Washington looks increasingly like a public-works jobs program for lawyers and lobbyists, a profit center for professionals who are in business for themselves.”
The real way Washington could create jobs is by getting out of the way. Fred P. Lampropoulos, founder and chief of Merit Medical Systems Inc., told the President [12] in December that businesses were uncertain about investment because “there’s such an aggressive legislative agenda that businesspeople don’t really know what they ought to do.” That uncertainty, he added, “is really what’s holding back the jobs.”
Quick Hits:
• Stocks worldwide suffered sharp losses as the cost of insuring Greek and Portuguese sovereign debt [13] soared.
• The House voted Thursday to allow the federal government to go $1.9 trillion deeper in debt [14], an increase of about $6,000 for every U. S. resident.
• The Senate health care bill would raise effective marginal tax rates [15] on lower and middle-income singles and families up to 41%.
• Windmills installed by Minnesota cities to meet the state’s new mandated global warming renewable energy requirements are failing to provide any power [16] thanks to the snow.
• The White House is preparing for the possibility they will have two Supreme Court vacancies to fill [17] on news that Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg both may retire.
________________________________________
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News

My questions are based on your schizophrenic arguments ican.

You claimed the democrats are to blame for not extending the GOP tax cuts that the GOP signed into law and will expire next year.

You now claim Reagan is responsible for the increase in tax revenues when Clinton and the Democrats signed a tax increase into law because the tax increase didn't match what the taxes were prior to Reagan cutting them. Are you blaming Reagan for the tax increase since you are giving him the credit for it?

Wandering further afield, I have always had reservations about the "up or out" position of the military. I can easily visualize a top level mechanic rising to the level of E-5, and having none of leadership abilities expected of a master sargeant or sargeant major. I kind of thought that was what the army had in mind when it came up with the Specialist grades vs NCO rank. I must have been mistaken

One of the problems with cutting the military is too many congresspeople with invested interest in saving the jobs in their 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 TO 1981]
1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981 TO 1989]
1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%
1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH41 1989 TO 1993]
1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%
1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993 TO 2001]
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1% [BUSH43 2001 TO 2009]
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6%
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF BUDGET RECEIPTS OUTLAYS SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS 1789-2012 (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
…
YEAR " FEDERAL RECEIPTS
…
1976 " 379,292
1977 -- 355,559 CARTER 1977 TO 1980
1978 -- 399,561
1979 -- 463,302
1980 -- 517,112
1981 "- 599,272 REAGAN 1981 TO 1988
1982 "- 617,786
1983 "- 600,562
1984 "- 666,486
1985 "- 734,088
1986 "- 769,215
1987 "- 854,353
1988 "- 909,303
1989 "- 991,190 BUSH41 1989 TO 1991
1990 "- 1,032,094
1991 "- 1,055,093
1992 "- 1,091,328
1993 "- 1,154,471 CLINTON 1992 TO 2000
1994 "- 1,258,721
1995 "- 1,351,932
1996 "- 1,453,177
1997 "- 1,579,423
1998 "- 1,721,955
1999 "- 1,827,645
2000 "- 2,025,457
2001 "- 1.991,426 BUSH43 2001 TO 2008
2002 "- 1,853,395
2003 "- 1,782,532
2004 "- 1,880,279
2005 "- 2,153,859
2006 "- 2,407,254
2007 "- 2,540,096
2008 "- 2,662,474
2009 --- 2,699,547,000 [OBAMA 2009 - ?]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
Year.......$FEDERAL OUTLAYS
…
1980......590,941,000 [CARTER 1977-1981]
1981.....….678,241,,000 [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1982.....….745,743,000
1983…......808,364,000
1984…..….851,853,000
1985….….946,396,000
1986….....990,441,000
1987….….1,004,083,000
1988….….1,064,481,000
1989….….1,143,829,000 [BUSH41 1989-1993]
1990.......1,253,130,000
1991.......1,324,331,000
1992......1,381,649,000 00
1993......1,409,522,000 [CLINTON 1993-2001]
1994......1,461,907,000
1995......1,515,894,000
1996......1,560,608,000
1997......1,601,307,000
1998......1,652,685,000
1999......1,702,035,000
2000......1,789,216,000
2001......1,863,190,000 [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002......2,011,153,000
2003......2,160,117,000
2004......2,293,006,000
2005......2,472,205,000
2006......2,655,435,000
2007......2,730,241,000
2008......2,931,222,000
2009......3,107,355,000 [OBAMA 2009 - ?]

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year USA Total Civil Employed
1980...............99,302,000 [CARTER 1977 TO 1980]
1981...............100,397,000 [REAGAN 1981TO-1988]
1982...............99,526,000
1983...............100,834,000
1984...............105,005,000
1985………........107,150,000
1986...............109,597,000
1987...............112,440,000
1988...............114,968,000
1989...............117,342,000 [BUSH41 1989 TO 1993]
1990...............118,793,000
1991...............117,718,000
1992…….….......118,492,000
1993...............120,259,000 [CLINTON 1993 TO 2000]
1994...............123,060,000
1995………….....124,900,000
1996...............126,708,000
1997………….....129,558,000
1998...............131,463,000
1999...............133,488,000
2000...............136,891,000
2001………………136,933,000 [BUSH43 2001 TO 2009]
2002...............136,485,000
2003...............137,730,006
2004...............139,252,000
2005………….....141,730,000
2006……..........144,427,000
2007...............146,047,000
2008...............145,362,000
2009...............139,959,000 [OBAMA 2009 TO ?]