Growth, Belief -- and Believing

Pro-Growth - the engines of our economy - certain things in the American spectrum of life do not necessarily lend themselves to the "you're either growing or dying" sort of philosophy. Certain kinds of businesses do not need to, or have to - keep growing their markets in order to sustain themselves.

And I understand, believe me, that if the public owns "stock" in a company - their profits and growth rates need to keep the pace which they had previously forcast to investors and/or stockholders. I *get* that...

Certain towns in America - Carmel, CA comes to mind - have managed their growth and been just fine. I live currently in Nashville, TN and there is a mentality here of growth, growth, growth! Do we want to become Atlanta, GA? Jeeze! And I hate to say it - but - many beautiful little towns in France... have been just perfect, for 500 years.

What the heck is wrong with a company or many select "entities" growing to a certain size and then just "being in business" and maintaining it's value or charm *at* that point. Like an Ice Cream company? Or a Shoe manufacturer? Or a town in North Dakota? Are there never any points of "optimum"?

What will it take, in our various environments, to achieve the agreement that some level of something is enough? At what point is there something called satisfied? And don't get me wrong, we can keep consuming and changing our environment until we are satisfied. That's what is great about America. The freedom to choose when enough is...

Anyone under a given set of circumstances can be satisfied with what they have - think of certain actors... that have disappeared from the public eye... no more fame... Could it be they are happy with what they've achieved and are now just - living?

What will it take in your life to achieve that optimum level of happy and content? Life on earth, in my opinion, should be mostly about one thing... living.

Life -- living.
Breath -- breathing.
Love -- and loving.
Belief -- and believing.

Do *you* get it? If not... when?
Tell me how *you* feel, or what you think, by clicking on "Comments" below.

A Lessening of the Worsening...

Both parties, both R and D are being less than truthful.

1. Dem's say that keeping rates frozen for another two (2) years for all tax brackets won't make any difference other than robbing the US treasury of 700 billion dollars over ten years.
2. Repub's say that extending the tax cuts to *all* brackets will create the growth we need, and stimulate job growth by freeing money that now sits on the sideline.

R wants all rates to stay down because they see that if they don't - the recession has no chance of getting better.

D wants to increase tax rates on those with incomes over $250k because they truly believe that will help the economy. Think Keynesian economics. http://bit.ly/bgOt3e

The truth for R's is that even with keeping all the Bush tax cuts unchanged, they will only get this for a maximum of two years until *guess what* happens? That's right! Obama's re-election bid will be known. Odds are always in favor of re-election... But you remember... Carter... GHW Bush? There are always exceptions. So with the possible re-election of O, most entrepreneurial money (in the +250k bracket) will stay on the sidelines until O is gone, if he gets gone. The only thing propping up the stock market now is interest rates are staying extremely, exceptionally low. If the current O's keep the Keynesian high deficit spending going - all bets are off regarding interest rates, the stock market and '70's style inflation.

The truth for D's is that they keep doggedly missing the point that the Bush year's tax cuts created 8 million jobs during his presidency even though he started out his time at bat with a recession as well. Those same style of tax cuts (across the board) created more than 20 million jobs during the Reagan years. The exact same is true for the Kennedy years. Most of the Reagan years *and* Bush years, as well as Clinton's years were spent with opposing House and Senate Majorities. Tax cuts for the upper brackets have historically created more jobs, and therefore more revenue from higher economic activity in the resulting economic boom, than their costs in lost tax revenue.

One fact is - prior to Bush Tax Cuts the top 1% (of taxpayers) paid 19% of  Federal Income Taxes (FIT) - After the Bush Tax Cuts the top 1% paid 36% of FIT.

If cutting tax rates on those making more than $250k is going to "Rob the Treasury" how was the above possible?

Here are some more facts:

• the top 2% of our citizenry represent 25% of all consumer spending
• 5% account for 37% of all consumer spending
• The top 1% of taxpayers  paid more than 40% of all Federal Income Taxes (FIT) in 2007
• 47% of households paid 0% FIT in 2009
• During 2003-2007 the Federal Deficit fell $217 billion (the Bush years)
• Currently the top 10% of taxpayers pay 68% of *all* FIT collected

IF all tax rates stay the same from the R's defeating the D's (keeping the Bush tax cuts) in this current economic debate, the main effect will be a lessening of the worsening of our economy. And, that's not such a bad thing.

Tell me how *you* feel, or what you think, by clicking on "Comments" below.

Stop the BS and let's tell the truth...

Every person running Democrat has been misrepresenting the position of most of their Republican or Tea-Party adversaries when it comes to their positions on taxes and trying like hell to revise history on the Bush years.

The Truth is that yes, the current recession began during the Bush Presidency but had nothing to do with the administrations' tax cuts as (most) all Democrats would have us believe.

Yes, the Bush administration agreed to the TARP fund for reasons that looked like were definately anti-Free Market. Yes, the Bush administration had a massive increase in the Education spending and the Prescription Drug program. Bush was/is a moderate (not a small-goverment guy) and, the then Republican-controlled House and Senate exuded no conservative "small government" controls on the growth and size of obligations to the taxpayer.

But, the current recession had nothing to do with any of that. It was the housing bubble bursting and overwhelming the banking system, pure and simple. The economy took a huge blow because the conservatives woke up too late to oppose the subtle and not so subtle changes in the lending/banking laws that also (I might add) ALL Democrats voted for.

So, lets stop all the BS about the Republicans driving the car into the ditch, shall we?

Please tell me what you think - and what you've got to say, by clicking on "Comments" below.

For more background on this subject (a lot more) see; America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution -http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the    By Angelo M. Codevilla - is professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University.