September 30, 2013 at 9:10 am
TP Wohlford says:

Ms. Amos is lost in her own echo chamber.

From the top:

Reagan's first term inherited the Jimmy Carter recession. His second term produced more jobs (percentage wise) than either of the Clinton administrations and almost as many in gross numbers.

By contrast, the Obama economy finally has as many jobs as when he took office, struggling to reach a zero gain. By this time in his Presidency, Reagan had a net positive of over 5.5 million jobs pulling out of that recession.

Second... "giving tax cuts, subsidies and loopholes to the very rich.giving tax cuts, subsidies and loopholes to the very rich." Which was most of the "Obama Stimulus" law of 2009. Defenders point out that most of that $800 billion was tax cuts, NOT cash. Those who are without sin have the right to live in glass houses on this one, and if I were you, I'd invest into a brick house.

Third -- even after "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" (Diane's side says this all in one run-on word, kinda a form of American Liberal German syntax), Bush '43 collected more tax money than Clinton, PERIOD. More gross, more when adjusted for inflation. And that was on the back of an economy that started out with the Dot-Com bust, suffered hits due to 9-11 and Katrina, and finally suffered the Housing Collapse.

But Diane's not into facts -- if she was, she'd live outside of her echo bubble community in the mountains.

September 30, 2013 at 9:16 am
Richard Bunce says:

Ms. Amos, you will be horrified to learn the largest Federal personal income tax annual revenue collection occurred in 2007, several years after the 2001 and 2003 Federal personal income tax rate reduction. You will also be horrified to learn the 1997 Federal capital gains tax rate reduction fueled the late 90s recovery (along with the dot com bubble.)

September 30, 2013 at 9:20 am
Hampton Brady says:

I salute the writer, Ms. Amos, 137.5%. You nailed it, girl!

September 30, 2013 at 10:49 am
Norm Kelly says:

So, let's be truthful, honest, complete in the story.

Let's stop ALL corporate welfare. Not just what liberals consider welfare.

Reducing taxes on the rich. Let's start with the FACT that 'rich' people are already in the highest tax bracket in the country at the federal level. Liberals have also pushed through higher tax rates for 'rich' people at the state level. No liberal has ever defined 'their fair share'. The only words spoken are 'tax the wealthy. they can afford it.'. So when conservatives cut taxes, and the rich pay the majority of taxes (check your government stats before you argue this one!), it's hard for tax breaks not to affect the rich. Giving tax breaks means taxing people who pay taxes at a lower rate. How can you give a tax break to those who pay no tax or very little tax. When someone is getting an un'earned income tax credit' payment from the government, how do you possibly give them a tax break? I know, this requires thinking!

Ending corporate welfare. Would this include GE, FaceBook, and other Democrat contributors? Would Democrats agree to stop offering 'incentives' to companies like Dell, Apple, and MetLife? I don't know of any true conservative who wants to give corporate welfare to any company. My sense is that most conservatives and libertarians are more inclined to support a tax that is more fair to everyone so that no one needs to be given any support from any government or agency. If corporate taxes were at a decent level, and implemented across the board, regardless of the company name, then there wouldn't be any need for special treatment. If income taxes were set the same for everyone, regardless of income, no special tax breaks, no special taxes on investment or savings, wouldn't it be easier for everyone to complete their annual tax return. There is not a single person in the country who could possibly know ALL of the tax code well enough to avoid an audit by the IRS. Just because you slip by an audit doesn't mean the tax forms were filled in correctly. Every time some company or individual is provided a 'tax incentive' at any level of government, that only means that someone else is being stuck with that bill. And let's not forget that it was Democrats who implemented a new form of tax on medical device manufacturers. For the first time in our history, and for the only industry in the country, medical device manufacturers are taxed on GROSS INCOME, not net profit. This is exactly the opposite of corporate welfare. And it WILL hurt the poor & middle class the most. The cost of medical devices will naturally go up because of this bogus tax. Who uses more devices, rich or poor & middle class? If you had to stop to think about how to answer that question, it explains why Dems continue to have so much power in this country.

Liberals are for the little guy, the poor, the middle class. What a crock! Does the lottery hit the poor & middle class the same as it hits the rich? Who forces insurance companies to charge a lower rate for ocean front property and pass the increase in premiums on to those of us who don't own beach property? Since the Dems were in charge of NC for 100 years, and this policy has been in place a very long time, you can't blame this one on Repubs. Dems prohibit school competition. Who exactly does this hurt? How could it hurt the rich? If someone is 'rich', doesn't it mean they can afford to send their kids to a private school? So it's the poor & middle class that are trapped in the public school system. How exactly does this help the poor & middle class? The King said that he wanted to raise capital gains taxes on the 'rich'. It is common knowledge that raising this tax decreases the take by the feds. But his holiness said that didn't matter, it was the fair thing to do to tax this type of income at a higher rate in order to punish the rich & make the poor & middle class feel better. (not exactly the way he said it, but he admitted that it would reduce the feds take. it's what his words meant.) So if increasing this tax actually made the feds take less, either the country went further into debt or the increase in taxes would be passed onto someone else. That someone would probably be middle class people. You know, the ones the liberals lie about wanting to support & help.

Actually trickle down economics has proven to be true. When Reagan reduced tax rates, income to the feds grew dramatically. The reason liberals didn't notice is because the Dems in Washington failed to follow through on their side of the bargain. Reagan made a deal with the Dems who were in control of Congress at the time. The deal called for a certain dollar cut in spending for every dollar cut in taxes. (don't recall the exact numbers. do your own search. stop relying on others to do all the work for you! what are you, a liberal?) Income to the feds went UP when tax rates went down. Except the Dems chose to increase spending. It's history. If you don't believe me, look it up. It is true that there is a point of diminishing returns for EVERY aspect of life. True in taxes as well. At a certain point, lowering taxes has a negative affect. At a certain point, raising taxes has a negative affect. There is a happy medium that liberals don't recognize, can't fathom. Increasing taxes on luxury items, such as yachts actually had a negative impact on jobs. When rich people stopped buying yachts, people who work for yacht builders & maintainers, you know those middle class workers Dems love to lie about supporting, had their hours cut or their jobs cut. How exactly did this help the middle class? The income to the feds from this tax actually went down with the tax rate increase. So it had the opposite affect than the Dems had intended. Or so they wanted us to believe.

Europe has had socialism in place for years. Socialists always claim that this is the best form of government that works for everyone. So show the stats for how many people in socialist countries actually are able to move from the poor class to the rich class compared to the same stat in the US. Show the stats for those who move from the rich class to the middle class in socialist countries compared to the same stats for people in the US. In an economy that works for everyone, shouldn't everyone have the same chance for success & failure? When liberals & socialists attempt to remove failure from the equation, what's left also removes much of the opportunity for success. Socialism gears everyone to the 'middle'. If I don't want to be in the middle, too bad, the system is going to force me there. How exactly does this 'work for everyone'? If dems are allowed to implement an economic system, called socialism, that allows everyone to reach for the middle, then what's the purpose of trying to achieve or improve oneself? In your perfect world that works for everyone, would this mean that there are no 'rich'? If this were true, then there would be no wealthy people in Spain, Greece, England, and certainly Russia. Show us all the stats that show there are no rich in these countries and all the other countries in Europe. Is there no wealth in Cuba?

When you get your facts right, you'll be able to get a real job. Until you understand history, and can be honest in your writing, you'll be stuck working a dead end job at a newspaper. Perhaps it's people like you, working for the newspaper industry, printing false information, that is the cause of the demise of the newspaper industry. Fox News, which I have NO access to, became the number 1 cable news network not because they report rosy stories for the Repubs, but because they report news, good or bad, for everyone. They obviously have a more conservative bent than any other network, but when compared to NBC, CNN, it's hard not to be considered 'conservative'. But watch Fox sometime. You will quickly realize that they roast Republicans as often or more often than they roast Democrats. It may be hard to notice with only 1 or 2 watchings because there are so many stupid Dems out there saying & doing so many stupid things. With 1 or 2 watchings you might get the sense that they are picking on Dems, but watch long enough & you'll notice that 'fair & balanced' isn't just a slogan.

(yes, i used to have access to fox news. yes, i know they are more fair than any other network. yes, i know you hate me because of this. get over it. i make no apologies for being a libertarian. i love john stossel. do you have a problem with this? don't care!)