Bill Clinton Says Rich Can Afford To Have Their Taxes Raised – But He Won’t Even Pay Hillary’s Campaign Debts

I don’t have the transcript for it, and the closest I could quickly find was this bit from Reuters:

“In my opinion, this is a good bill, and I hope that my fellow Democrats will support it,” Clinton said.

He admitted that as a high earner himself he would benefit from the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that Democrats, including Obama, dislike. But with an extension of unemployment benefits and a cut in payroll taxes, Clinton said the package was the best bipartisan deal to help the country.

But I directly heard Slick Willy say that he could afford paying higher taxes.  And that even though he would personally suffer, it was the right thing to do for the country.  Because that’s just what a noble guy he is.

And Obama very definitely said it, as the Washington Times article entitled, “Obama: Rich can afford tax hike” should make abundantly clear.

But what Bill Clinton CAN’T seem to afford is wife Hillary’s campaign debts from now more than two full years ago.

The Clinton’s will eventually pay them, I don’t doubt.  With Other People’s Money, of course:

Bill Clinton is giving someone a chance to spend a day with him in New York City to help pay off his wife’s 2008 campaign debt.

The former president has sent out a new fundraising pitch on behalf of his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who still owes her presidential campaign pollster.

Hillary Clinton owed Mark Penn and his firm more than $479,000 as of September, according to a campaign report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Bill Clinton can pitch for raising income taxes on Other People.  Because he knows damn well he’ll weasel out of them with the help of accountants who are nearly as slick as he is.

He’s not interested in “paying his fair share.”  If he was, he’d write the check for his family campaign debts, instead of trying to sucker you into writing the check to pay off his wife’s debts for him.

Do you think Slick Willy’s going to be digging out his checkbook to pay off YOUR debts anytime soon?

Clinton and other wealthy liberals can say this kind of crap because they are unrelenting hypocrites.  Their souls swim in hypocrisy the way fish swim in water.  And so they know that they can raise taxes to whatever level they can manage, and that they’ll be able to afford every tax dodge and tax shelter and tax loophole that money can buy.

But most people can’t.  They’re forced to basically pay out the maximum rate, because they don’t have the money to afford the tax attorneys who can shelter their assets.  So they get screwed while the Slick Willy’s of the world keep getting other people to pay their debts for them.

And, of course, the Clintons and the Obamas have other little perks that honest people don’t have.  When Bill Clinton was elected as the attorney general for the state of Arkansas, his wife Hillary immediately got hired by the Rose Law Firm.  And when Bill was elected governor, suprise, suprise, Hillary suddenly made partner.  And there was that $1,000 Hillary turned into a hundred grand inside of a year with the painfully obvious benefit of insider trading tips.

And Michelle Obama benefited every scintilla as much from her husband’s political machinery.  Within months of Barack being elected state senator, Michelle Obama received a $195,000 pay increase from the “not for profit” hospital where she worked.  And at that same time, she was suddenly put on boards of companies for lucrative money – yes, including another huge stock payout.

Maybe you get money literally thrown at you on account of your spouse’s political connections.  I don’t.  Maybe the fact that I have to work hard for my money, rather than riding the coattails of a big money political machine and the businesses craving the opportunity to purchase influence makes me less willing to pay more taxes to the government.  Because I can’t tell my political patronizers, “The price just went up.”

And this liberal progressive hypocrisy on taxes and influence peddling with Other People’s Money  is as old as, well, liberal progressivism.

Barack Obama n0minated Tom Daschle to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services – and incredibly powerful position in the advent of the age of ObamaCare.  The only problem was that Daschle the Democrat hadn’t paid his taxes.

This happened again and again with a slew of Democrats who thought that their screed of “paying your fair share” only applied to Other People.  And how DARE you think that Democrats should be held accountable for standards that should only apply to Other People.

Ultimately, Obama’s nomination for Treasury Secretary went through, even though the man who would be in charge of tax enforcement hadn’t bothered to pay his own income taxes.  Because, by that time, it was apparent that finding an honest Democrat was just impossible.

And, of course, we now all know about the history of the Democrat in charge of writing tax laws for everyone else, Rep. Charlie Rangel, the now-disgraced former Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

But, of course, if you think he should be criminally prosecuted for his abject failure to follow his own tax laws, well, you’re just a racist, aren’t you?

If the Congressional Black Caucus really believed that “the rich should pay their fair share of taxes,” they’d have hung Charlie Rangel up by his balls like he deserved, rather than labeling anyone who pointed out that he was a tax-cheating hypocrite fraud as a racist.

And in a way, the racist Congressional Black Caucus is completely right.  Because all Charlie Rangel did was act like a Democrat.  And if every Democrat was arrested for hypocrisy, I mean, there just wouldn’t be any Democrats walking the streets, would there?

Remember, Charlie Rangel is a good Democrat.  A GREAT one, in fact.  Because he was totally true to the Democrat philosophy: he wanted Other People to pay higher taxes, while he himself slept on the beach in front of his villa – which he hadn’t bothered to pay taxes on in SEVENTEEN YEARS.

Amazingly, Charlie Rangel – who was re-elected yet again in spite of the fact that he is a big fat criminal and a fraud, because that’s just the way Democrats roll – was one of the vocal Democrats spouting their opposition to “the rich” getting away with paying lower than communist-level income taxes.  Because, again, Democrats make up for their ignorance with sheer unmitigated chutzpah.

Rangel should do a lot less talking and a lot more shutting the hell up.

The same thing happened the LAST election, in 2004.  John Kerry was lecturing us in that snotty tone of voice of his on paying our fair share of taxes, and how the rich owed more.

Well, George Bush – the guy who believed in LOWER taxes – basically paid income taxes on the maximum federal income tax rate of 35% without taking deductions he qualified for.  What did the Kerrys pay? How double damn DARE you ask!!!

Kerry’s Wife Pays Less Taxes Than Median Family

“According to HUD, the median family income for the U.S. for 2003 was $56,500.  After applying the standard deduction of $9,500 for married filing jointly we end up with a taxable income of $47,000.  This puts the average family in the 15 percent tax bracket.  Kerry’s wife, using tax shelters, managed to pay only an effective federal tax rate of 11.5 percent, compared with the top federal income tax rate of 35 percent.  She paid $587,000 on an income of $5.1M.

“If Kerry wants the rich to pay more he should start with his wife.”

Despite the release of partial financial information, John and Teresa Kerry have not explained why, if it’s so important for the evil rich to pay more taxes, they didn’t add a voluntary addition to their check to the IRS.

So the arrogant and always snooty Kerrys – who demanded that Other People pay far more on their income taxes paid less than one-third (rhymes with ‘turd’) the tax rate they would have paid if they were honest people who WEREN’T full of hypocrisy over their eyeballs.

Because John Kerry and his rabid wife are Democrats.  And to be a Democrat is tantamount to being a vile pile of slime these days.

Has John Kerry learned the error of his ways and reformed from his hypocrisy?  I hate to tell you, but his yacht screams hell no:

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

All this to say that Democrats say “the rich should pay more” only because they are vile dishonest hypocrites who know that they won’t have to follow the rules that they afflict honest people with.

The facts are abundantly clear: allowing citizens – ALL citizens, not just the ones who pass Democrats’ Marxist class warfare test – to keep more of their own money which they earned and they deserve to keep is good for the economy, good for job-creation and even good for the government tax revenues.

Not that you can trust Democrats who are too damn dishonest to bother to pay their own taxes while railing at everyone else to pay more to admit that.

Every Democrat who says that “the rich should pay more” should be checking the box on their tax forms and donating whatever percent they want Other People to pay to the government.  That’s right, you hypocrite Democrats: why don’t you put your money where your mouths are for just once in your life and do what you are demanding that Other People do?

That goes for the more than half of you Democrats who don’t pay ANY federal income taxes at all.  You can file a tax form.  You can check that box.  You can give 39.6% of your money – or whatever you demand that Other People pay – to the government.  You’re just too damn full of hypocrite to do so.

So you just eat dirt, you Bill-and-Hillary Clinton John-and-Teresa Kerry Tom Daschle Timothy Geithner Charlie Rangel Democrats.  You can be as self-righteous – or as Barack Obama himself called you, “sanctimonious” – as you want.  But you know and I know that you’re really nothing but a bunch of lousy greedy hypocrites who want Other People to pay YOUR “fair share.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

21 Responses to “Bill Clinton Says Rich Can Afford To Have Their Taxes Raised – But He Won’t Even Pay Hillary’s Campaign Debts”

  1. HL Says:

    You are appropriately outraged at the Democrats continued, blatant hypocrisy, Michael. It is infuriating beyond words. A whole lot of us feel as you do.

  2. Michael Eden Says:


    If Democrats didn’t have blatant hypocrisy, how on earth could they go on being Democrats?

    Democrats NEED blatant hypocrisy. They owe everything they are to blatant hypocrisy.

    Asking a Democrat to stop being a blatant hypocrite is rather like asking you or I to stop being a carbon-based life form.

    It does help knowing that there are great souls such as yourself out there who actually can – in Bill Clinton’s famous words – “feel my pain.”

  3. James Candelmo Says:


    Thanks again for another enlightening article. I look forward to your daily blog and they have become part of my morning routine, so thank you again.

    I need some assistance regarding conversations/discussions I have with friends that are more of a liberal or “straddle the fence” mindset. When I point to the obvious hypocrisy and flat out illegal activities as you have pointed to so clearly in this blog, by the Democrats, they just retort with “they do it on both sides of the aisle” in an effort to discount my argument that the Democratic party as it is today I believe to be wholly harmful for America. I can’t seem to get much traction past that and at times have to agree (especially when it comes to sex scandals) which saddens me. On that note and with respect to this latest article, can you point me towards a blog or website or ?? that would show that the hypocrisy is one sided and not as prevalent with the Repubs as well ?

    Additionally, I am startled at how fast Boehner and the House Repubs conceded to Obama in allowing the extension of UI and all the additional add ons that are currently revealing how expensive this tax extension will be. I am truly frustrated and believe that instead of just talking about extending the Bush tax rates (and I call them rates because I hate the term CUT which hints at the notion it was the governments money to begin with) that we should be talking about further reducing the rates, maybe 10% across the board. If the Repubs want to really make an impact and as most (smart) economists believe, the reduction of tax rates increase volume in revenue and stimulate economic growth. Am I missing something here? I have voted Republican all my life and truly believe we are the party of fiscal responsibility and what is right but it seems these guys are weak and continue to bend using “compromise” as an excuse. I do understand that compromise is necessary to move government business along but at what cost? They need to hold strong, much like they did with Clinton, and keep putting those bills in front of Obama to veto until he finally caves with poll and backer opinion.

    Also, why aren’t the Repubs demanding an up or down vote on each issue and eliminate this melting pot of crap that these bills eventually become? After all the crap is added, it’s difficult to know what they are really passing! Any information or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for your large contribution to making America a little better everyday.

    James Candelmo

  4. Michael Eden Says:


    Thanks for reading. And thanks for letting me know in your comment. I really appreciate that.

    I’ll try to respond to the questions you ask. The first is summarized by your description, “they just retort with ‘they do it on both sides of the aisle’ in an effort to discount my argument.”

    First of all, given that even Jesus, the incarnate Son of the Living God, wasn’t able to convince everyone, you’ve just got to realize that many people just aren’t capable of changing their minds. Responding to the truth is as much an act of will as it is hearing the facts. Then there’s that thing about “if you argue with a fool, people watching you won’t be able to tell the difference.” When I realize that someone deflects facts by throwing up garbage, when I realize that someone simply isn’t capable of changing their mind, I move on. There’s no point arguing with a fool or an idiot. Go bang your head against the wall instead; you’ll have a better chance of accomplishing something.

    I actually partially accept the horns of the dilemma these “fence-sitters” present: Republicans are hardly perfect, by any stretch of the imagination.

    That said, to the extent that both Republicans and Democrats are both criminals, there nevertheless remains a difference of massive degree. Yes, thieves are criminals, as are murdering torture-rapists; but I would much prefer the former living next door to the latter.

    One of the problems with the fact that “Republicans and Democrats are both criminals” is the dishonest emphasis on the former and the tendency to ignore the latter by the mainstream media propaganda. Here’s an example for you: I’ll bet you remember the story of Republican Mark Foley and the pages; but do you remember the story of the Democrat named Tim Mahoney who replaced Foley in the very same district? I’ll bet you don’t. And I’ll bet it’s the same with those you get into “discussions” with.

    When the leftwing media culture pounds away at Republicans day after day, and virtually ignores Democrats – who do even WORSE – it’s not surprising that people end up with the impression that “Republicans are just as bad.”

    Here’s another story that underscores this phenomenon: the media has reported the incredibly dishonest fraud on the part of politicians in Bell, California. But there was virtually no mention whatsoever that ALL of these dishonest slimebags were Democrats. There were 351 stories reporting on the fraud and corruption in Bell, CA. And of those stories, 350 failed to mention that the crooked politicians were Democrats. Only ONE pointed out that fact; and then only in response to a reader who complained about the omission.

    And just let me tell you that had the slimeball politicians all been Republicans, it would have been the OTHER WAY AROUND, with 350 out of 351 stories all reporting that the crooks were Republicans.

    I responded to a guy who put down Fox News with a presentation of some facts (you can see that exchange here), and among other things I pointed out the following (my apologies for coming a little unglued on the fellow):

    Here’s a little factoid about those “journalists” you trust because you’re too damn stupid to want legitimate news coverage:

    Polling of MSM journalists showed they voted 9-1 in favor of Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush in 1992 and voted in the same margin for John Kerry versus George W. Bush in 2004.

    How about this little quote – coming from MSNBC!

    “The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms”

    Geez. People like you leave me shaking my head like a Parkinson’s victim.

    There’s all kinds of evidence of whopping media bias: the Washington Post correspondent who covered conservatives who despised conservatives before inadvertently outing his own bias. The constant use of dishonest descriptive language to paint conservatives as rather nasty people who want to hurt poor people (here’s another example). The rather constant evidence of bias in reporting that we see on such “mainline news” stations as CNN.

    A UCLA study concludes, “almost all major media outlets tilt to the left,” noting that “Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center.” But you’re probably find that a public university located in liberal California in ultra-liberal Los Angeles is somehow a conservative entity loaded with rightwing bias.

    Here are some more media tidbits:
    The media has been so blatantly biased throughout its election coverage that it is completely accurate to say that we are now in a propaganda state. There is no possible way that Republicans can win in this media climate: whether you look at the Media Research Center, or at the Project for Excellence in Journalism (or again at their more recent study), or at the University of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Advertising Project, there is widespread agreement with one longtime ABC journalist that the media is dangerously biased. Pew Research discovered that Americans believe by a 70% to 9% margin that the media is biased in favor of Obama and against McCain. The media now represents a fifth column of government – a propaganda wing – that attacks conservatives and celebrates and defends Democrats and their ideology. Democracy is going extinct in the country that founded democracy, because no free society can survive such a climate of propaganda.

    From Media Research:

    89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.———–
    Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.

    There’s a frightening “tilt” going on among journalists. Many are leftist as they can be, but they are so immersed in their bubbles they don’t even KNOW they’re in a bubble of liberal ideology. Then there are journalists such as the now disgraced as a bigot but once considered one of the great reporters Helen Thomas, who basically literally said, “Of course I’m a liberal; what else is a reporter supposed to be but a liberal?”

    It’s literally biblical in nature:

    Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

    For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. — 2 Tim 4:3-4

    People have to sincerely care about truth. There is a sea of lies for those who don’t have a passion for truth.

    As for the mainstream media, well, the worst people on earth have always been the best at controlling the media with dishonest lies. Go back to 1934 and the greatest propaganda film ever made, “The Triumph of the Will,” which took the world by storm and won award after award. It culminated with its hero, Adolf Hitler, being hailed as American Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year.” [This year that “honor” is reportedly going to Wikileaks slimball Assange].

    I didn’t have to go into deep study for that; I keep it on tap in a file and just spit it out as needed.

    As for Republicans on this tax deal, I don’t know if most of us can know. I’m a die-hard conservative Republican, but I don’t necessarily want Republicans to refuse to compromise in any way, shape or form. What I want for them is to get the best and most conservative legislation that they can get at any point in time.

    What we want are tough, smart negotiators who – as the song goes – “know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em,” etc.

    Shutting down the government and turning up our noses at legislation that would avert EVERYBODY’S taxes from shooting up – which would potentially cause catastrophic damage to the economy – is not a good idea. Whether we got the best deal we could get is worth debating, but I think we needed to come to the table and compromise to avert disaster.

    For the record, I wrote an article on the fact that cuts in tax rates have actually increased tax revenues (as
    well as both the amount and percent of total tax revenues) every single time it has been tried

    Lastly, and as to your final paragraph, keep in mind that the Republicans have not taken power yet; they don’t do so until January. When the “reinforcements” arrive, I hope with you that Republicans begin to change the way Washington has operated.

    Appreciate your insights and your kind words,

  5. James Candelmo Says:


    Thanks for responding, I feared I was wasting my time but am hopeful that one day my friends on the left side of the fence will see the truth. Your articles (I did read the one about reduction in tax rates about a week ago and loved it) are helping every day refute statements and ignorant beliefs that these friends of mine have had for some time now.

    I look forward to more of your great articles and appreciate all your information.

    James Candelmo

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks a lot for that, James.

    It is very inspiration to know that I’m not just shouting into a hurricane (which would still be better than peeing in a tornado).

  7. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE; We may have discussed this on another thread, but I think it bears repeating until I turn blue in the face and democrats/liberals/rinos need to understand: The higher the tax rates go, the more capital the wealthy withdraws the marketplace and put the funds in tax free municipal bonds, for example, or other tax free havens. As a result, the tax base contracts, revenue slows,deficits rise, GDP contracts and unemployment spikes. When tax rates rise, there is less capital that is not being used to invest in building, expanding, restructuring, hiring or what have you. We NEED that capital in the marketplace from the wealthy. When FDR raised the top marginal tax rate via Revenue Act of 1935, nicknamed, “soak the rich” tax, tax rates kicked in starting in tax year 1936 to 79% for taxable income over $5Mil, as a result, it exacerbated an already bad situation and a little known recession came in 1937-1938, revenues slowed and debt spiked up, unemployment went up to 19% from about 14%.
    You can get the latest tax stats WITHOUT THE SPIN at then click on “tax stats” near bottom right. All you need is Adobe and Excel

    Hauser’s Law

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Excellent stuff, Dauntless.

    I updated the “Tax Cuts Increase Reveneues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues” Article with the following information:

    [Update, 12/15/10]: Check out these numbers as to how the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED the taxes paid by the wealthy, and REDUCED the taxes paid by the middle class and the bottom 50% of tax payers:

    Income tax burdens (from the Joint Economic Committee for the US Congress report, 1996):
    1981: top 1% of earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes
    1988: top 1% of earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes (+ 10%).

    1981: top 10% of earners paid 48% of all personal income taxes
    1988: top 10% of earners paid 57.2% of all personal income taxes (+ 9%).

    So rich clearly paid MORE of the tax burden when their tax rates were LOWERED.

    For the middle class:
    1981: middle class paid 57.5% of all personal income taxes
    1988: middle class paid 48.7% of all personal income taxes (- 9%).

    The middle class’ tax burden went DOWN by 9%. They paid almost 10% LESS than what they had been paying before the Reagan cuts.

    For the bottom 50%:
    1981: bottom 50% paid 7.5% of all personal income taxes
    1988: bottom 50% paid 5.7% of all personal income taxes (- 2%).

    So the Joint Economic Economic Committee concludes that if you lower the tax rates on the rich, the rich wind up paying MORE of the tax burden and the poor end up paying LESS. When you enact confiscatory taxation policies, the people who can afford it invariably end up protecting their money. They do everything they can to NOT pay taxes because they are getting screwed. When the rates drop to reasonable rates, they don’t shelter their money; rather, they take advantage of their ability to earn more – and improve the economy by doing so – by investing. If you take away their profit, you take away their incentive to improve the economy and create jobs.

    The Joint Economic Committee clearly has all the “nonpartisan” bonafides of the CBO. But for some reason you don’t have the mainstream media crowing over these historical facts which prove everything you and I are and have been arguing.

  9. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    I don’t know if you have seen this, but you can go here:,,id=175910,00.html

    and get a complete historical record of the personal income tax rates since 1913.

  10. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    I would argue that the 35% top marginal rate we have now should have been cut lower when it was changed in 2003. W really would have hit a home on it.

  11. Michael Eden Says:


    I think you’d be able to make a good argument.

    Obviously, the so-called “supply siders” recognize that a 0% tax rate would not be good (unless we had other sorts of taxes to fund the government, anyway). The Laffer Curve points out properly that at either 0% or 100% the government gets ZERO taxes (although I literally think liberals don’t realize that if the government collected 100% taxes, people would quit working; their theoretical models simply don’t factor that fact in).

    The only question then is, at what point is “the sweet spot”? Different studies have led to different conclusions. And the number might literally change as times change.

    There is no question that whenever we have cut the tax rate, we have had a substantial impact in collecting MORE revenues by stimulating the economy. When you reward growth, you get more growth.

    And, of course, when you tax growth, as the liberals want to do, you get less growth, and a contracting (shrinking) economy.

  12. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    If you go back an look at the TMTR prior to and during RR years here:
    scroll down at the bottom and click to enlarge:

    In the Peanut years, the TMTR was 70%, then 69.1%, then to 50%. While 50% is high relative to today, they were much lower RELATIVE to the previous high of 70% and, of course, it did spark economic growth. When they dropped to 28% which was the lowest since the 1920s. So, that is the basis of my point; if W could have got the TMTR down to 28% or preferably below 20%, it would have been a home run. The change from 38-39% from the Bubba years is small but better than nothing. While the job growth and revenue growth were good after 2003 but not as robust as it could have been.

  13. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Correction: The change from 38-39% from the Bubba years to the current 35% is small but better than nothing. While the job growth and revenue growth were good after 2003 but not as robust as it could have been.

  14. Michael Eden Says:

    That’s a great article you’ve got, Dauntless.

    I copied it to a word file for future reference and future citation.

    The only thing the Democrats have is a prima facia case that turns out to be false (eg., “tax hikes on the rich generate more revenue”), and models that painstakingly refuse to look at documented historical fact and load their work with bogus presuppositions (e.g., that the wealthy don’t change their behavior as their tax rates launch into the stratosphere).

    And then, of course, the whole “Reagan cut taxes and deficits increased” canard, which is akin to “I had vegetable soup and got hit by a bus.” The one had nothing to do with the other, and in fact the deficit would have been HIGHER without the tax rate cuts, but why bother with reality?

  15. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE: They have a mental disorder. Truthfully, speaking strictly from an accounting viewpoint, the Total Public Debt Outstanding did go up every year here:

    Unfortunately, EVERY administration leaves debt behind as you can see above. However, as with any administration, expenditures did exceed revenues(officially, called receipts) in RR years. I will post more on this later. My main argument in defense of RR, however, would be this: despite the lower TMTR achieved, they were still VERY HIGH, RELATIVE to previous administrations, and THAT exacerbated the deficits(what liberals whine about) along with HIGH INTEREST rates. I would argue that if the TMTR rates could have be cut deeper down to at least 20%, it would have been a triple out of the ballpark and the yearly deficits would have been less and probably a balanced budget every year. You can have a balanced budget in any FY, which is great, but that Total Public Debt Outstanding is still there and needs to be paid down. You can have a balanced budget in your household, but that mortgage and auto payment is still there. You pay down your debt with “surpluses”. Overall, RR was successful, don’t misunderstand me, but not as successful as it could have been, thanks to democrats obstructionism and hatred for the wealthy and still do today. Go back at look at the TMTR in the “Roaring 20s”: 25%. Remember what we talked about Andrew Mellon? Bingo!

  16. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    Continued: I came across this by another blogger:
    Scroll down and look for a chart called “Rolling Average GDP Growth vs Govt spending %GDP”. She is exactly right. More and more “transfer of wealth” i.e. govt handouts are killing the GDP.

  17. Michael Eden Says:


    Democrats have a mental disorder because they have a MORAL disorder. They are moral idiots. When you can’t see the world as it really is – or at least when you refuse to do so – you literally will yourself to be stupid. And then you could have the intellect of a rocket scientist, and your own intelligence works against you as you figure out new and creative ways to convince yourself that the lies you once swallowed are still true.

    Your point re: interest rates is a good one. And, of course, don’t forget that stratospheric inflation that Carter created. Carter was asked about whether he had a plan to solve inflation, and acknoweled he did not, adding that he doubted that anyone could solve it. Reagan solved it; but it was painful, and there were no easy ‘outs.’

    Reagan had plans for the economy, and plans for foreign policy. But he also had Tip O’Neil and a solid Democrat majority to work with. And that meant compromise. And while Reagan gets blamed for a lot of spending on the military – mostly because Jimmy Carter had allowed the military to totally go to crap and it desperately NEEDED a lot of spending to bring it back – the lions share of the spending that created deficits went to big government liberal programs.

    Ben Afleck is a poster child for the liberal hypocrisy. This slimebag demonized CEOs for high pay relative to workers pay; what the hell does HE make per movie relative to the janitor working on the same set? But does he first give the difference between his pay and that janitor’s pay back to the lower-paid workers? Oh, no. He lectures us as if we’re too stupid to understand how full of crap he is. If I were a liberal, I would not be able to stand my own moral stink.

  18. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    MichaelE; yes there was high inflation in the Peanut years and on into RR years. But who caused this? The incompetent Federal Reserve. I posted a comment about this in a recent post on my blog about the 1920s: while the cut in tax rates were great in those days, at the same time the Fed was expanding the money suppy and credit was low. The Fed contracted the economy my withdrawing about 1/3 of the money supply and that set off the crash of 1929. They did the same thing in the recession of 1938-1939 but not as much. This contraction back and forth, or see-saw of the money supply and credit is very manipulative of the Fed. They did similar actions in the Peanut years; high interest rates and tight money supply. Early on in RR years, the Fed loosened up interest rates and expanded money supply. Again, more see-sawing of the money supply by the incompetent Fed. I am not defending Peanut, and yes, the TMTR were 70% in his administration, which did not help any at all, but the closer I examine economic data, the more I see the sly hand of the Fed and their manipulative shenanigans. obamarx and co. has run up the debt so high, I mean, way out of the norm, and the Fed has expanded the money supply so fast to the point, I think, there may be no return. This was done on purpose and it will kill us. This see-saw game the Fed plays is present in every recession we have had. We had a stable currrency up until 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was enacted. The closer I examine economic data, I have learned that tax policy is important as we have discussed at length, but the regulatoins that are in place AND monetary policy play a very big role in the economy. I heard a story, not sure how true it is, about Woodrow Wilson a democrat, later on regrets the creation of the Fed. How this country has survived with facsist democrat potus like Wilson and FDR, I’ll never know.

    Not to mention more regulation with the so-called “financial reform” which is nothing more the more brutal regulation on top of an already regulated financial industry. Just ask your banker. Govt boondoggle regulation a la Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is an underlying cause of our situation now, but that is another thread.

    When I came across that blogger, Captain Capitalism, she demonstrated how the GDP rate of growth as been slowly dropping since somwhere around the Peanut years and govt expenditures are going steadily up. This can partially explain why the debt as %GDP has gone up since about that time. Well, add population growth to that and what do you have? There are less people producing, better known as WORKING, which contributes to this slow dropping trend in GDP. There is a huge segment of the population that soaking the govt with handouts. The Cato institute did a study and found out how an unwed mother with children received around $20k a year in about 5-7 different govt subsidies and worked a part time job earning around $3k a year. I think Captain Capitalism nailed it hard.

    Anyway, Merry Christmas to you and yours.

  19. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ll have to come back and re-read your post more closely later, but I agree with you re: the Federal Reserve.

    The entire concept of the Fed derives from liberal progressivism; it is just another view that a panel of elite lever-pullers can save the day by pulling all the right levers.

    It’s funny that we had recessions and even depressions before, but nothing really terrible. And then we got the Federal Reserve, which promised – PROMISED – that it could so efficiently control our money supply that we need never have another recession again. And then BOOM: the worst depression EVER, within just a few short years.

    And what did liberals say to that proof that their heads were filled with rodent poop? Decree that we needed far more governmental controls, of course!!!

    Hope this finds you having had a Merry Christmas. And have a Happy New Year, while you’re at it.

  20. The Dauntless Conservative Says:

    We certainly did MichaelE…a white Christmas at that…5-6 inches of snow on my back deck and yard. I hope you and yours have a Prosperous, Wealthy, New Year…save the democrats from destroying our wealth.

  21. Michael Eden Says:


    Well, as for me, I could build a “Sand man.” No snow in the desert.

    If Obama has his way, we will “redistribute” the snow, and have a snow tax on snow producers, so that we who have no snow (the snow-deprived) can have snow trucked in at your expense.

    Because, after all, how DARE you horde all the snow and call yourself a good person…

    Happy New Year to you,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: