J Branstetter: President Ronald Reagan- Taxes and Budget Deficit: October, 1987

Source:J Branstetter- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) deficits don't matter? (1987) 

"Listen to the camera shutters when he moves his hands, they go crazy. President Ronald Reagan talks about the effects of different types of taxes on the budget deficit and why some taxes have a adverse effect on the economy. This takes place at the White House at a news conference in October 1987." 

From J Branstetter

I just want to point out that I actually have a lot of respect for President Reagan, even though I’m a Jack Kennedy Liberal Democrat, but I also have serious differences with him and his fiscal policy which at the time would be called supply side economics. 

Supply side economics: you cut taxes deeply without paying for them and increase government spending substantially in defense, but in other areas as well. The theory being that the economic growth as a result of the tax cuts, would pay for the new spending. President Reagan inherited roughly a 40B$ Budget Deficit which even at the time in the late 70s and early 80s was considered small.

And President Carter had an awful economy and President Reagan inherited and awful economy, but left office with a strong economy. With strong economic and job growth, but left office in 1989 with a large Federal debt and deficit and one of the largest debts as a percentage of GDP. As well as deficits of GDP as well, of around 200B$. 

President Reagan’s debt and deficit was so big that he raised taxes in back to back years after the 1981 tax cuts and this is with a Republican Senate as well. President Reagan’s own Vice President called the Reagan tax cuts when he was running for President: “Voodoo Economics”.

Howard Baker, a Republican and the Senate Leader from 1981-85, called the Reagan tax cuts: “A riverboat gamble”. 

David Stockman, President Reagan’s own Director of Budget and Management called the Reagan tax cuts, a big mistake. 

Dick Darman, President Reagan’s other Director of Budget, said that if President Reagan had to choose between balancing the budget by 1984, or ending the Cold War and getting the economy going again, he would pass on a balanced budget. He didn’t want the debt and deficit, but believed that was a price worth paying in oder to accomplish his other goals. You know none of these people are Democrats, they are all Conservative Republicans saying these things. Just not Neoconservatives.

President Reagan never submitted a balanced budget to Congress, or a plan to balanced the budget to Congress. It was never a priority on his part. The economy, the Cold War, reforming Social Security, tax reform and immigration reform were his priorities. All things that he got through Congress as President. 

President Reagan had a very good batting average in Congress as President. Including his ten plus tax hikes he had as President, including middle class tax hikes with the 1983 Social Security reform law. President Reagan increased taxes and spending and because of that he could be labeled a tax and spender.

Tax and spender is generally a label that’s reserved for Social Democrats or Socialists (who are called Progressives or Liberals today) not Conservative Republicans like Ron Reagan. Ron Reagan talked and campaigned like a Conservative, but governed like a pragmatist: “This is what I want to do and if I have to give these things up to accomplish that, then that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”

President Reagan was right to cut taxes, perhaps even as deeply as he did. 70% tax rates in a liberal democracy is too high. But where he failed was by not cutting government spending to make up any difference that economic growth doesn’t pay for. He was also correct to beef up our national defense, but failed to pay for it as well. And that’s why he left office with the debt and deficit he had. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

The Film Archives: BookNotes With Brian Lamb- Robin Wright: 'A History of Iran: From the 1979 Islamic Revolution to Ayatollah Khomeini's Death (1989)'

Source:The Film Archives- The Iranian People, perhaps in 1979.

"The Iranian Revolution is also known as the Islamic Revolution of Iran or the 1979 Revolution; Persian: انقلاب اسلامی, Enghelābe Eslāmi or انقلاب بیست و دو بهمن. About the book:Amazon."

From The Film Archives 

“The author chronicles the first ten years of the Iranian Revolution, employing an unprecedented access to Iran’s major figures to outline the nation’s importance to the rest of the world.”

Source:Amazon- Robin Wright's book.

From Amazon 

“TEHRAN, Iran — Here are key events that have marked Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution that overthrew the monarchy.

Islamic Republic proclaimed

On January 16, 1979, the US-backed shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, leaves for exile after months of protests.

On February 1, revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini makes a triumphant return from exile.

The shah falls 10 days later, with public radio declaring “the end of 2,500 years of despotism.”

An Islamic republic is proclaimed on April 1." 

Source:Times of Israel- talking about the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

From the Times of Israel

Part of the fault for the 1979 Islāmic Revolution in Iran that brought an Islāmic Republic to Iran after they were a monarchy with the Shah as its head of state (dictator, really), has to be given to the Shah of Iran. Because he was a dictator at the time ruling a very large country, but with only 20-25M people, that is deep in natural resources. 

The Shah wasn’t all bad, he did managed to build up their economy to a certain extent and build an education system and other things. (Sort of like Fidel Castro in Cuba) But he was a dictator who was accountable to basically no one, except for the United States and United Kingdom, to a certain extent. That both put the Shah in power and could’ve removed him at any point and this was also a political problem for the Shah with his people.

To America and Britain, the Shah was a puppet for them, instead of his own man only accountable to the Iranian people. Who also held down his own people and they got tired of being held down without much freedom or recourse. And they saw these Islāmic leaders in Iran and turned to them to take down the Shah and his regime. Not knowing the consequences of this, because in taking down the Monarchy they replaced one authoritarian dictatorship with another one with an Islāmic Theocracy that over thirty-two years later is still in power in Iran. With its strict restrictions on political freedom and women’s rights and so-forth. 

Iran which has the natural resources, physical size and population to be a first world country and the most dominant power in the Middle East has regressed backwards under their Islamic Theocracy. And making it look like a country from the 15th Century with how it treats its women. With dress codes and limiting people to the things in the media that they can see and so-forth.

What Shah Reza of Iran, should’ve been doing as he was building up his large country, was to educate his people as well. And give them the freedom to live their own lives, not overnight, but overtime. And moving Iran from a monarchy towards a republic, where the Shah would be more of a ceremonial power, or perhaps have more governmental powers. But where most of the power would be with the executive, a President or Prime Minister, with a Cabinet and so-forth. That would govern the country with a multi-party elected Parliament at some point. With provincial and local government’s, as well that would also be elected. And then the Shah could’ve run for president and probably would’ve been elected, perhaps several times.

Shah Reza was in power in Iran for about forty-years and had plenty of time to establish a system like this and as he could’ve brought these progressive changes to Iran. With a national constitution and everything else. To go along with the economic and educational development.

The Shah could’ve released the grip that the United States and United Kingdom had on him and his government. Which would’ve only of helped him politically, because he would’ve no longer be seen as a puppet of the U.S. and U.K. Iran today as the Islāmic Republic of Iran, instead of the Federal Republic or United Republic of Iran, or something, most of that blame has to fall on the Islāmic Revolution. Because maybe Iran is a developed nation today instead of a third world nation. But some of this blame also has to fall on Shah Reza for keeping his people down before they rose up and went with the Islāmic Revolution.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Euro News: 'Libya's Oil Industry To Start Restart Pumping Mid-September'

 

Source:Euro News- a man who was interviewed for this piece.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"Libya's new oil minister says he expects production of crude to restart in about ten days. Ali Tarhouni said the pumps will begin again in the Misla and Sarir oilfields around the middle of the month. The industry is central to Libya's recovery. Before the war to unseat Muammar Gaddafi it was churning out 1.6 million barrels a day. It's expected to take another 15 months before it recovers to that level. Euro News." 

From Euro News

The average Libyan makes around 11K$ a year which is pretty good for Arabia, where most Arabians make around 2-5K$ a year. But these are still third world wages in a country with first world natural resources thats also a large country, but lightly populated. (A little over 6M people) So it's not like they have to worry about overcrowding and being able to feed enough people. 

Because Libya is deep in resources and land, but with a light population, they can do these things and literally start from scratch and build up its rotten health care and education systems, so their people can be healthy and can get the skills that they need to get good jobs in Libya. And with Libya's oil industry, they'll not only be able to use their oil for their own energy needs. But they'll be able to export their oil to Europe, North America, and Asia. 

Hopefully America will get to the point that we'll no longer have to import Arabian oil or any other oil but we are certainly not there yet. But Libya will be able to use their oil revenue to help build up the rest of the country and even diversify the rest of the economy. Perhaps even having its own auto industry where they are making their own cars and even having their own auto companies and they wouldn't have to import so many cars from Europe and Asia. And have a broader transportation industry in general and use their own oil to power their own autos. 

Libya has a long way to go to rebuild and build up the rest of their large country and they are going to need a lot of money to do that. Which is why rebuilding their oil industry is critical as well as foreign trade with new trade agreements with Europe, North America, South America, and Asia. And of course lifting of economic sanctions on Libya and returning frozen assets back to Libya. And will probably need foreign aide as well, at least until they can get their economy going again. 

Libya now has an excellent opportunity here to make this all happen and not just build up part of the country. Which is what the Gaddhafi Regime did but build up the rest of the country as well so all of Libya can take advantage of its natural resources. And people can see and live in the whole country not just parts of it because the rest of the country gets developed as well.

Euro News: 'EU increases Pressure On Bashar Al-Assad'

Source:Euro News- European Union Foreign Policy Catherine Ashton.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"The EU is gradually ratcheting up the pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with a raft of new sanctions. Foreign ministers of the 27 member states have agreed to ban imports of Syrian oil in response to the ongoing violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations in Syria. They have also extended sanctions against seven Syrian individuals and organisations. It is the first time measures have targeted the key oil sector. Euro News." 

From Euro News

It's clear that Assad Regime in Syria has lost all credibility as far as governing Syria except for some loyalists that remain in Syria to the Assad Regime. Thats what happens when your murder people as the Assad Security Forces have for holding protests and demonstrations in Syria. Fighting for their freedom and for the most part these demonstrators have been peaceful. 

It's also clear at least up till now that President Bashar Assad of Syria is not going to step down peacefully or go down quietly. That he'll probably have to be removed from power, whether it's looks like what happened to President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, When his Security Forces refused to take down the protestors there and he stepped down from power as a consequence. Or it looks like what happened Moammar Gaddhafi of Libya where he was forcefully removed from office. 

And the question is how does this come about. I believe the Arab League shouldn't step aside and let their fellow arabs be murdered. I also don't believe that the European Union an organization thats pro- democracy and fights for it, as well as the United States the same thing should sit aside and watch people get murdered and do nothing about it. 

So the question to me is how do we bring this about, how to we force President Assad out-of-power. There are several steps that can take place a four step plan, where hopefully all four steps don't have to come about. 

Hopefully President Assad would recognize that it's time for him to step down from power and turn his country over to the opposition. Or at least to an interim government that would run the country until Syria holds general elections which is what is happening in Egypt right now. Which is different from what's happening in Libya right now, where the Gaddafi Opposition is now running the country instead of Moammar Gaddafi. 

So in this four step process that I see it, first what I believe the United States, European Union, Arab League and United Nations should do jointly. 

One, call for President Assad to step down from power and hand the government over to the Syrian Opposition or an interim government. 

Two, put in economic sanctions on Syria, don't let money enter or leave Syria and only let in resources in or out of the country. That would be managed by Syrian Opposition: things like food, water, medical supplies, human resources, etc. As well as freeze all foreign assets that the Assad Regime has outside of Syria. 

Three, if necessary arm the Syrian rebels with money, resources and even weapons if they need them to defend themselves against the Assad Military Forces. Including things like bringing in any Assad defectors into the Syrian Opposition. 

Four, and hopefully it doesn't get to this, establish a no fly zone over Syria and this is where NATO would be needed. Turkey and Egypt could play a big role here, to protect the Syrian rebels and the Syrian people from their own government, essentially. As well as ground forces if necessary from Turkey, Egypt and the Arab League to protect the Syrian rebels and the Syrian people. 

This is not something that the United States can run or managed but we can help by sending in supplies and with sanctions. Because we are already overcommitted around the world. But where the Arab League, European Union, NATO can play a big role and lead the way. Back the Syrian rebels and knock another Middle Eastern authoritarian regime out-of-power. 

Glenn Beck : Michael Reagan Interview- 'The New Reagan Revolution'

Source:Glenn Beck- and Ronald Reagan's son and author Michael Reagan.

"Read the entire article at Glenn Beck. On February 4th Glenn Beck interviewed Michael Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan, about his new book called The New Reagan Revolution: How Ronald Reagan's Principles Can Restore America's Greatness.

With all the erroneous talk lately about how similar President Obama is to President Reagan, Michael Reagan once again shares the genius of his father and how the same principles and lessons he taught the world back in the 80′s when he was letting America shine and be strong.... 

From Glenn Beck

The Ronald Reagan that I most respected, was the Ron Reagan before he became President. Even though he did some good things as President as well, like ending the Cold War with the Soviet Union and getting the economy going again after inheriting an awful economy from the Carter Administration. He of course didn’t do that alone, no President or government can of course. 

But the Ron Reagan that I respect most, was anti-Washington, anti-big government, pro-individual freedom. Believed in things like keeping government out of our wallets and bedrooms, he was even pro-gay rights.

Reagan pro-gay was rights after he became President in 1981. Pro-strong military, but only use when it was in our National Interest. He wasn’t a Neoconservative which is something else I respect about Ron Reagan. 

But as much as Reagan spoke out against big government, he expanded the Federal Government almost as much as President. And not just in the Defense Department, but he expanded the War on Drugs, more Americans than ever were in prison during his administration. A big reason for that to do with his expansion of the War on Drugs. And of course the record debt and deficit he piled up as President, because of his defense spending and his unpaid for tax cuts were a big part of that as well.

Ron Reagan was a classical Conservative, (just not fiscally conservative) perhaps even a small l libertarian even when he was running for President. But as President even though he kept some of those principles, he was more of a pragmatist than anything else. “What do I have to do to get the job done, what do we have to negotiate." 

Ronald Reagan had a Democratic House the whole eight years as President. Democrats had a large minority in the Senate for six years and controlled the Senate the last two years. I give President Reagan credit for ending the Cold War and turning the economy around. But we paid a heavy price for it in debt, deficit, high interest rates and inflation in the early 1990s.

If you look at President Reagan’s accomplishments as President, the economy, the Cold War, getting three Conservatives on the Supreme Court. Sandra O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. As well as appointing a Conservative to Chief Justice in William Renquist, all this alone makes Ronald Reagan one of the most successful conservative president’s we’ve ever had politically. As well as winning the presidency in a landslide, being reelected in a landslide, his Vice President George HW Bush succeeding him. 

Actually, I don’t know of a more successful Conservative President than Ronald Reagan politically. Dwight Eisenhower would be then only other one I would consider. As far as being able to get his policy’s put in place and having a positive record to show for them.

George W. Bush wasn’t a Classical Conservative, but a Neoconservative as President. With his borrow and spend fiscal policy and neoconservative foreign policy. To call Ronald Reagan perfect as President, you have to be either the president of his fan club and vowed to never say anything negative about him, or not have been alive during his presidency and never read, or seen anything about his presidency. 

Ronald Reagan was the most successful Republican President of the 20th Century, with only President Eisenhower would be someone I would consider. And that’s all the credit I’ll give him. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Eric Cantor: 'Discusses Republican Jobs Agenda, Economic Growth and Irene on Fox News'

Source:Eric Cantor- talking to America's Newsroom.

"Eric Cantor Discusses Republican Jobs Agenda, Economic Growth and Irene on Fox News"

From Eric Cantor

The House Republican Leadership I believe has won the argument on deficit reduction in 2011. Every time a budget fight has come up, they've gotten budget cuts out of if including in the last debt ceiling debate.

They've won the argument that the Federal Government should stop borrowing and spending and moving past the fiscal policy of the Bush Administration. And that it's time for the Federal Government to get its debt and deficit under control and start paying it down.

Given that, why would they introduce an economic policy that is more of the same and gets us back to the Bush Administration by cutting taxes probably without paying for them and cutting them for the people and business's that are already doing very well and have been doing very well. But aren't spending any money right now that would create a lot of jobs in America. And return us to the days of the Wall Street Scandal of the 2008 and as well as the Wall Street scandal of 2007-08. With no referee's in the game and no one regulating business's and individuals to prevent, stop and punish people when they abuse others in the economy.

What House Leader Eric Cantor is apparently about to introduce in the House when Congress comes back in session next week, is an agenda that looks very similar to the Bush economic policy's: a combination of cowboy economics with no rules in the game. And supply side tax cuts where you cut taxes deeply for people who are already doing very well and you don't pay for them.

The reasons why our economy is in the economic mess that it's in today, is because of the borrow and spending, supply side tax cuts and a neoconservative foreign policy. Where you try to eliminate government's around the World that you don't like with military force and then you don't pay for those military operations as well. Iraq comes to mind because it's the perfect example of this policy.

With the Cantor economic agenda, we'll see campaign commercials in either late 2011 or 2012 or both from House Democratic Campaign Committee, as well as the Democratic National Committee attempting to link and I believe successfully, President Bush with the House GOP and any Republican presidential candidate that endorses it because it's more of the same.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over agin and expecting different results, then the Cantor economic agenda is insane by definition, because it's more of the same from what we've seen the last ten years, but expecting it to work better.

What we need to be doing instead as we get out debt and deficit under control is encouraging consumers to spend more money and this can be done with targeted tax cuts. As well as rebuild our crumbling infrastructure but pay for it, especially after a storm like Hurricane Irene. But also to put people back to work. And move this country towards energy independence instead of just subsidizing big oil and gas just for doing well.

The Warrior Ron Paul: 'Ron Paul Interview on Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace'

 

Source:The Warrior Ron Paul- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) on Fox News Sunday, with Chris Wallace.

"Ron Paul Interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace - August 28, 2011. Visit Ron Paul Daily News for the latest news interviews and articles on Congressman Ron Paul." 

From The Warrior Ron Paul

It's refreshing to hear Representative Ron Paul honestly talk about reforming FEMA and disaster relief in general. But it's also refreshing to hear Representative Paul moderate his position on how to reform FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) and not be in favor of getting rid of a Emergency Management Agency, without replacing it with anything else. 

The way we've dealt with natural disasters in the past, is essentially wait for a disaster and then borrow the money to pay for the disaster relief. When Congress comes back into session in September and the White House most likely sends a bill to them to borrow money from China or Russia or some other country to pay for it. 

House Leader Eric Cantor who doesn't make intelligent statements everyday, is right to take the position that Congress shouldn't allow a bill that would borrow the money to pay for this disaster relief to come out of the House at least meaning it wouldn't come out of Congress either. Because the House and Senate have to agree first before any bill can pass Congress. The Democratic Senate will probably borrow the money to pay for their Disaster Relief, that the Senate Republican Leadership will probably successfully block. 

And I know this will start another partisan political fight the victims of Hurricane Irene at stake so they can get the resources they need to rebuild their communities. And another political fight is probably the last thing Americans want to see Washington doing right now, but I believe this is a fight worth having. Because we are talking about the health of our economy and getting our fiscal condition back to a place where we can manage it with a much lower national debt and deficit. 

I'm not saying that we should ignore the victims of Hurricane Irene and do nothing for them. I'm just saying that we should pay for our disaster relief now and going into the future and do a better job of how we pay for it by putting money down and up front. And using the money to pay for the disaster relief from that fund, the cleanup and insurance. 

Reforming our Emergency Management System as well as a Disaster Insurance System I believe is fairly simple. What I would do is to eliminate FEMA, but then replace it with cooperative between the Federal Government states, and even private sector, where the Federal Government would be more of a regulator of this Emergency Management System as well as the Disaster Insurance System. Then trying to run both of them and they would both be financed by essentially a property tax and a payroll tax, to fund for the cleanup of disasters and when a disaster happens in a state, then they would be able to use this property tax to pay for the cleanup. 

With a new disaster relief system like this, they would hire private companies to handle the cleanup. And this property tax would be assigned by how much property is worth for owners and renters and how high at risk they are prone to a disaster: hurricane, earthquake whatever it might be and then their would be a payroll tax to pay for the disaster insurance. 

The Federal Government would regulate, but not run and each state would have their own Disaster Insurance System that they would regulate as well. That the people would be able to select for themselves where to get their Disaster Insurance, including a public option for each state. And again this payroll tax would be assigned by how much property is worth and how prone they are to disasters.

A PAYGO (pay as you go) system like this, paying as you putting money down and collecting it when you need it to pay for the cleanup of disasters, as well to fix and replace property thats harmed from these disasters, is a much better way to pay for Disaster Relief, then to essentially wait for a disaster to hit and then borrowing the money to pay for it. And putting it on the National Credit Card and letting nations that don't have your best interest at heart, own part of our debt.