Ferrara is a pos associated with Jack Abrahmoff, Ronald Reagan and Yeshiva University ... enough said
On Dec 18, 10:39 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > The truth, in less than 2400 words. Ferrara is right on the mark here: > > *Our Marxist Wizard of Oz* > Peter Ferrara > December 16, 2011 > > http://townhall.com/columnists/peterferrara/2011/12/17/our_marxist_wi... > > His mother was an unabashed hippie from 1960s central casting. His father > was an openly avowed Communist from Kenya. While his father wasn't around > much, his devoutly progressive grandparents arranged for him to be mentored > during his adolescent years by a dues paying member of the U.S. Communist > Party, Frank Marshall Davis. > > When he went to college, he was attracted to the Marxist professors and > student activists, according to his own published memoirs. When he > graduated, he moved to Chicago and became an instructor for the left-wing > extremist organization ACORN in the social manipulation methods of radical > Marxist agitator Saul Alinsky. He attended for close to two decades the > Trinity United Church of Christ, which practiced neo-Marxist Black > Liberation Theology. That church was headed during those years by the > openly socialist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who declared that the 9/11 terrorist > attack on America was "America's chickens coming home to roost." He also > famously preached from his pulpit, "Not God bless America, God damn > America...." > > He launched his political career in the living room of the home of Bill > Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, co-founders and former leaders of the openly > Communist domestic terrorist organization, the Weather Underground. That > organization conducted several bombings in America and engaged in other > violence that resulted in several injuries and even deaths. > > All of this is documented in the public record. This is the man the > Democrat party took off the streets of Chicago, then pursuing a career as a > Marxist street agitator, and launched into the White House, favoring him > over Hillary Clinton because she was too moderate for the party. They did > that because he best reflects the heart and soul of today's radical-left, > Che Guevara Democratic Party. It is in this context that we should > understand and analyze Obama's Hugo Chavez speech given last week at > Osawatomie High School in Kansas. > > *Obama's Hugo Chavez Coming Out* > > In that speech, he drew a picture of America as a struggling third world > nation, saying at stake today "is whether this will be a country where > working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, > own a home, and secure a retirement." In fact, he said, "there are millions > of working families in this country who are now forced to take their > children to food banks for a decent meal." > > This sounds more like Indonesia, or Venezuela, or Nicaragua. But it is not > America "long before the recession hit." > > He explained the roots of the problem as: > > Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed > businesses to do more with less, and made it easier for them to set up shop > and hire workers anywhere in the world.... Steel mills that needed 1,000 > employees are now able to do the same work with 100, so that layoffs were > too often permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle.... If > you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many > in your profession replaced by ATMs or the Internet. > > This Luddite analysis fundamentally misconceives the role of technology in > a modern economy. Such advancing technology increases worker productivity, > and, therefore, wages and standard of living. Technological progress over > the decades is why the average American worker in 2000 enjoyed 7 times the > standard of living of the average American worker in 1900. > > He then tries to pin the blame for his failures on others, saying, "Now, in > the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a > kind of collective amnesia. After all that's happened, after the worst > economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same > practices that got us into this mess." > > The policies that got us into this mess included primarily the so-called > "affordable housing policies" Obama himself and other Democrats long > advocated, with the government forcing the banks by overregulation to drop > their traditional lending standards to provide loans and mortgages to low > and moderate income applicants who could not qualify under those > traditional standards. (See the full documentation and discussion in Paul > Sperry's *The Great American Bank Robbery: The Unauthorized Report About > What Really Caused the Financial Crisis* and Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua > Rosner's *Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and > Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon*. > > The other major factor was the Fed's loose monetary policy starting under > Bush in the 2000s, which funded the housing bubble. Both policies were > departures from the fundamental planks of Reaganomics. As I discuss in > detail in my own book, *America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb*, the four planks > of Reaganomics had been effectively abandoned by 2008, and that was the > cause of the financial crisis, which ended the 25-year economic boom from > 1982 to 2007 that Reaganomics had created. > > Obama tries to continue his historical revisionism, saying, "Remember that > in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive > tax cuts in history, and what did they get us? The slowest job growth in > half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for > the investments that built this country." > > Here is what really happened. Those Bush tax cuts quickly ended the 2001 > recession, despite the contractionary economic impacts of 9/11, and the > economy continued to grow for another 73 months. After the rate cuts were > all fully implemented in 2003, the economy created 7.8 million new jobs and > the unemployment rate fell from over 6% to 4.4%. Real economic growth over > the next 3 years doubled from the average for the prior 3 years, to 3.5%. > > In response to the rate cuts, business investment spending, which had > declined for 9 straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7% per quarter. > That is where the jobs came from. Manufacturing output soared to its > highest level in 20 years. The stock market revived, creating almost $7 > trillion in new shareholder wealth. From 2003 to 2007, the S&P 500 almost > doubled. Capital gains tax revenues had doubled by 2005, despite Bush's 25% > cut in the capital gains rate. > > The deficit in the last budget adopted by Republican Congressional > majorities was $161 billion for fiscal 2007. Today that deficit is nearly > 10 times as much. Total federal revenues under Bush soared by nearly 30%, > from $1.991 trillion in 2001 to $2.568 trillion in 2007. The day the > Democrat Congressional majorities took office, January 3, 2007, the > unemployment rate was 4.6%. George Bush's economic policies, "the failed > policies of the past" in Obama's rhetoric, had set a record of 52 straight > months of job creation. > > What has continued to fail us now is that Obama's own policies, the exact > opposite of Reaganomics in every detail, have failed to produce any timely > real recovery from the last recession. Before this last recession, since > the Great Depression recessions in America have lasted an average of 10 > months, with the longest previously at 16 months. But here we are today 48 > months after the last recession started and there is still no real > recovery. Instead, we have record poverty, and record extended unemployment. > > They can't say that is because the recession was so bad, because the > historical record in America is that the deeper the recession the stronger > the recovery. Based on the historical record, we should be ending the > second year of a booming economy right now. The failure to achieve that is > the responsibility of Barack Obama. > > Obama himself was counting on precisely this history making him look like a > hero. That is why he so confidently told the Today Show on Feb. 2, 2009, "a > year from now I think people are gonna see that we're starting to make some > progress...if I don't have this done in three years, then this is going to > be a one-term proposition." > > Before Barack Obama as President, the rest of the world looked to America > as the example for the economic model that works to achieve prosperity. But > today Obama tells America "It doesn't work. It's never worked. It didn't > work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not > what led to the incredible postwar boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn't > work when we tried it during the last decade." > > But it's President Obama, who fundamentally doesn't understand his own > country, that doesn't work. > > *Obama's Tax and Spending Fantasies* > > In his Kansas speech, Obama offered as his solution increased government > spending as the foundation for rising prosperity. He says: > > Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in places with > the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, and > communicate with the rest of the world. That's why the over one million > construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed > shouldn't be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding > our roads and bridges; laying down faster railroads and broadband; > modernizing our schools -- all the things other countries are doing to > attract good jobs and businesses to their shores. > > Instead of the American capitalist model maximized by Reaganomics, Obama > tells us to look at the basic infrastructure spending of other countries as > the model that works. But American economic growth is not suffering because > of a lack of basic infrastructure like a third world country. It is > suffering because Obama is so doggedly pursuing the opposite of every > policy that would free the economy to produce and boom. Under such > Obamanomics, soon enough America will be suffering from the lack of a > reliable energy grid like a third world country. > > Obama whines that Bush's massive deficits (if his deficits were massive > what are Obama's?), supposedly caused by his tax cuts (not--revenue again > rose during the Bush years), "have made it much harder to pay for the > investments that built this country and provided the basic security that > helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class -- things > like education and infrastructure; science and technology; Medicare and > Social Security." > > But spending on all of those items soared during the Bush years, and they > have rocketed up all the faster under Obama. To no avail, because > government spending is not the foundation of increased economic growth and > prosperity. Increased production, spurred by ever stronger incentives, is. > > Of course, essential to all of President Obama's essential spending is to > increase tax rates on the rich, otherwise known in English as the nation's > investors and job creators. As President Obama tutored us in Kansas last > week: > > But we don't have unlimited resources. And so we have to set priorities. If > we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. > We have to make choices.... Do we want to make the investments we need in > things like education, and research, and high-tech manufacturing? Or do we > want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our > country? Because we can't afford to do both. That's not politics. That's > just math. > > So there you have the Obama formula for economic growth and prosperity. > After the greatest runaway spending spree in American history during the > Obama Administration, the answer is for government to increase spending > even more, financed by increasing tax rates even more on the very investors > and job creators that produce the jobs for the middle class and working > people in America's economic system. That is a perfect prescription for > another recession, not the long, long overdue recovery America is still > waiting for under Obamanomics. Obama tells us, "It is wrong that in the > United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who > earns $50,000 should pay a higher tax rate than somebody pulling in $50 > million." That would be wrong if it were true. But it is not. > > What Obama is peddling to America on tax policy is only the ugliest example > of his well-established rhetorical style of calculated deception. It is > based on what he thinks the average voter does not know and will not know, > and can be manipulated to believe to Obama's political advantage. For the > picture he is painting of the rich getting away without paying their fair > share while working people bear most of the tax burden is the opposite of > reality. > > Even before Obama was elected, under those "failed policies of the past," > the top 1% of income earners in 2007 paid 40% of federal income taxes (up > from 17.6% when Reagan entered office), while the CBO just reported that > they earned 17% of the income in 2007. Moreover, that 40% of federal income > taxes paid by the top 1% was more than paid by the bottom 95% combined, > according to official IRS data. While the top 1% paid 40% of federal income > taxes, the bottom 40% paid no federal income taxes as a group on net. Today > 47% pay no federal income taxes. > > Yet, Obama has already enacted under current law further tax increases on > the nation's job creators, investors and small businesses going into effect > in 2013, when the tax increases of Obamacare become effective and the Bush > tax cuts expire. Consequently, that year the top two income tax rates would > rise by close to 20%, the capital gains tax would soar by nearly 60%, the > tax on dividends would nearly triple, and the Medicare payroll tax would > rocket up by 62% for these disfavored taxpayers. This alone would take us > well beyond the Clinton tax rates, despite Obama's outdated talking point > that he is still repeating from 2008. > > This is in addition to America suffering with virtually the highest > corporate tax rate in the industrialized world at nearly 40% on average, > counting state corporate rates. As I have previously noted, even Communist > China imposes only a 25% rate, with the rate in the EU even less on > average. Our Canadian neighbors, enjoying a booming economy since Obama was > elected in America, will enjoy a 15% rate next year, down from 16.5% this > year. > > Yet Obama barnstorms America calling for still more tax increases on > American business, large and small, and the job creators and investors on > which jobs and prosperity for working people depend. The galloping > regulatory burdens he is now imposing effectively involve still further tax > increases stifling production. It all adds up to a brew for another > recession in 2013, unless the American people force a change in course in > 2012. > > Newt.For.President.2012..jpg > 23KViewDownload > > Ferrara.jpg > 21KViewDownload -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
