Chuck  says:
4 months ago

Ralph - Good to hear from you again and thanks for the comment.

For myself, I would say that we could easily cut the Federal government down to size by strictly enforcing the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights which reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Thanks again and be sure to contact me the next time you visit Tucson so we can get together for a drink.

Chuck

Chuck  says:
4 months ago

jkfrancis - thanks for visiting and for your comments.

Republicans, while welcome, were definitely not in the majority of those present. The people attending were a combination of independents, libertarians, conservatives of all parties, Republicans who are fed up with the party as well as some Republicans and Democrats. Tammy Bruce, the featured speaker is a life long Democrat.

The Tucson Young Republicans had a booth and were selling bottled water for a dollar as a fund raiser. When one buyer mentioned Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer he was jokingly told that the cost for the governor was $2. While the governor was not present, a Republican and a couple of minor party candidates seeking to run against her had boots with nominating petitions for voters to sign.

Also, while there were a few who had strong negative feelings toward the President, most were either neutral or still admired him - it was his policies that all disliked.

Thanks again for your comment and for visiting

Chuck

eovery  says:
4 months ago

Hey Chuck, Great Job,

I like all the pictures. This must have been a good time. This needs to expand.

What to cut, Wow, people don't understand it. How about all the trillions of dollars the government in putting into the tarps, and all the other trillions dollars they are spending. What to cut? How easy of an answer! People do not get it. We talk, the do not listen.

Keep on hubbing Chuck.

Chuck  says:
4 months ago

Ralph, eovery - thanks for visiting and for your comments.

As to cuts. The FDA, SEC, Medicare, Labor & Energy Departments, Federal Reserve (I believe that we survived the closing of the First and Second Banks of the U.S. in the 19th Century) and most of the twentieth century alphabet soup agencies could all be disbanded and not missed by most of us.

Having taken so much money in taxes from Social Security recipients, we would have to continue the pensions for those already retired and on Social Security. For the rest, stop the Social Security taxes now (this would be a big economic stimulus) and use the increased funds from such a tax cut to refund all monies paid into the system so that individuals could invest them in a better investment for their retirement.

As to Medicare, I personally would like to see it repealed before I reach 65 and am forced into it. As Betsy McCaughey pointed out in a July 23, 2009 op ed piece in the Wall Street Journal ( "Government Care's Assault on Seniors" on page A15) buried within last February's Stimulus Bill was a provision calling for the creation of a British style system of limiting care based on age - i.e., letting distant bureaucrats decide who gets life saving care and who doesn't. This is of course in line with former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm's statement in a speech during the 1990s saying that "older people have an obligation to die in order to keep Medicare solvent". President Obama made essentially the same statement when, in answer to a question about a 100 year old woman's need for a new pacemaker, in which he said that "we all have to make end of life decisions".

So, as I stated in my earlier comment above, take a close look at the Constitution and then, as specified in the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, abolish every Federal program and activity that is not delegated to the Federal Government.

If you remember the debates and discussions during the last third of the twentieth century about how to move economies from socialism or communism to a free market system, many thought it impossible. However, Lady Thatcher successfully moved Britain from socialism to free markets, Ireland, then the poorest nation in Western Europe, deregulated its economy and quickly became the wealthiest nation in Western Europe. Then, of course there was the collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe and the growth and prosperity that followed. I personally saw the change in Russia having visited there in 1969 and 1979 and again in 2004 after they moved to a market economy.

It may not appear easy but the results in terms of both economic prosperity and increased freedom are worth the effort needed to undo a century's worth of ill advised progressive legislation.

Chuck

eovery  says:
4 months ago

Like I said, You tell then, They don't understand.

Rallph, I totally disagree with you on the tarp and the other trillians of spending. In the past there was tax cuts and sending cut to help take the stress off the business and consumers to make allow the economy to recover and it worked for years, I know the left is disagreeing with this, but that is their freedom.

The trillions they is being spent is not helping the recession, but is going cause major problems in the future. Most of the tarp and stimulus money has not actually been spent, so how can it be that which isbringing us out of recessions?

We can't spend, tax, and barrow our way out. It is a short time heroic solution, with big time consequences in the near future.

And no I do not believe this spending is what is bringing us out of the recession. The corporations themselves are bringing us out. And the current government want to tax these successful one and stiffle the growth, and put us back into recession.

We are not out a recession until the corporationns are profitable and making money so they can hire. As a old labor union guy you should understand this econimic principle.

Keep on hubbing!

Ralph Deeds  says:
4 months ago

What You Might Not Know About the Recovery by Joe Biden

Published: July 26, 2009

Washington

SIX months ago, when President Obama and I took office, we were confronted with an economic crisis unparalleled in our lifetime. The nation was hemorrhaging more than 700,000 jobs a month, the housing market was in free fall, and the fate of the financial system hung in the balance. Credible economists were handicapping the probability of a depression. The actions we took — passing the Recovery Act, stabilizing the banking system, pressing to get credit flowing again and helping responsible homeowners — brought us back from the precipice. Monthly job losses are down, financial markets are improved, and economic contraction has slowed. We still have a long way to go, but clearly we are closer to recovery today than we were in January. The Recovery Act has been critical to that progress.

Notwithstanding this progress, the nature of the Recovery Act remains misunderstood by many, and misconstrued by others: critics have suggested that the entire $787 billion is being spent on pet programs. As the person leading the administration’s efforts to put the Recovery Act into effect, I want to set the record straight.

The single largest part of the Recovery Act — more than one-third of it — is tax cuts: 95 percent of working Americans have seen their taxes go down as a result of the act. The second-largest part — just under a third — is direct relief to state governments and individuals. The money is allowing state governments to avoid laying off teachers (14,000 in New York City alone), firefighters and police officers and preventing states’ budget gaps from growing wider.

And those hardest hit by the recession are getting extended unemployment insurance, health coverage and other help to get through these tough times. The bottom line is that two-thirds of the Recovery Act doesn’t finance “programs,” but goes directly to tax cuts, state governments and families in need, without red tape or delays.

As for the final third, the act is financing the largest investment in roads since the creation of the Interstate highway system; construction projects at military bases, ports, bridges and tunnels; long overdue Superfund cleanups; the creation of clean energy jobs of the future; improvements in badly outdated rural water systems; upgrades to overtaxed mass transit and rail systems; and much more. These investments create jobs today — and support economic growth for years to come. Far from being a negative, the wide array of these investments is needed given the incredible diversity of the American economy.

Projects are being chosen without earmarks or political consideration, and many contracts have come in under budget. More than 30,000 projects have been approved, and thousands are already posted on recovery.gov — providing a high level of transparency and accountability. Taxpayers should know that we have not hesitated to reject proposals that have failed to meet our merit-based standards.

The care with which we are carrying out the provisions of the Recovery Act has led some people to ask whether we are moving too slowly. But the act was intended to provide steady support for our economy over an extended period — not a jolt that would last only a few months. Instead of quick-hit rebates, we are giving Americans a tax cut in each paycheck. Instead of pumping out all the state aid immediately, we are spreading it over the two years that it will be needed. Road projects, energy projects and construction projects are being started as soon as they pass review, contracts are competitively bid and reporting systems are in place.

Even with such care being taken, we have already committed more than one-fourth of the Recovery Act’s total funds, and we are on track to meet the deadline set when the act was passed in February — spending 70 percent by the end of September 2010.

The Recovery Act is not the cure for all our economic ills — no single piece of legislation could be. But how many government initiatives can point to both large numbers of projects coming in under budget and a Government Accountability Office finding that we are ahead of schedule in key areas?

It is true that the act’s effort to address multiple problems simultaneously makes it an easy target for second-guessing. Critics have argued that the tax cuts are too small (or too large); that too much (or not enough) aid is going to rural areas; that too little (or too much) is being spent on roads. Recently, some have even criticized the act for helping support soup kitchens and food banks.

But the way I see it, our balanced approach recognizes that there is no silver bullet, no single thing, that can address the many and complex needs of America’s vast economy. We need relief, recovery and reinvestment to cope with our multifaceted crisis — and only 159 days after it was signed by President Obama, the Recovery Act is already at work providing all three.

Joe Biden is the vice president of the United States.

Chuck  says:
4 months ago

eovery - you are right about the fact that very little of the stimulus money has been spent and the economy is improving by itself in spite of the lack of stimulus spending.

A number of economists have pointed out that during the stalemate between the Hoover and Roosevelt administration's when the government did nothing, the economy began improving and was actually driven back into a severe depression in 1932 as a result of the big spending and regulation that Roosevelt claimed was intended to get us out of the Depression. Some writers are even referring to the depression of 1932 - 1945 as a separate "Roosevelt Depression".

As to the Republican Party and President Bush, you are right that many Republicans are upset with the former President's big spending programs and the wasteful and irresponsible spending on earmarks by the former Republican Congress.

Personally, while I am not happy with the current left of center House and Senate, I was happy to see the Republicans take a beating in the election because, to paraphrase an old line, they were basically "Democrats in Republican clothing".

As a result, like many of my conservative Republican friends, I no longer identify myself as a "Republican" or even "Conservative Republican" but simply as a "Conservative". In fact both Rush Limbaugh and Governor Sarah Palin have both made comments recently that they plan to support conservatives regardless of their party affiliation.

Chuck

Ralph Deeds  says:
4 months ago

It's quite common for children to follow in their parents' career footsteps whether it be medicine, the law, engineering, teaching or criminality. This tradition goes back to the earliest days of American politics. As you probably are aware, John Adams was the second president of the U.S., and his son John Quincy Adams was the sixth president. (I wasn't aware of the Biden situation, and I can see why that wouldn't win any popularity contests for him or his son.) No doubt many people feel that their elected officials are not responsive to their needs and wishes. They are right. The main reason for that is that there is too much corporate money sloshing around in Washington. Too many Congressmen are bought and paid for by the Wall Street Banksters, Big Pharma, the health care insurance parasites, big oil, etc. The answer is public financing of all election campaigns, national state-level.