dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

GOP’s “Commitment to America”
Posted Tuesday, September 27, 2022 | By AMAC, Robert B. Charles

We could all use something solid. Everything from our currency to culture is shifting. Now comes the GOP’s “Commitment to America.” It has a nice ring. What is this Republican vision document, the GOP blueprint for January 2023 through January 2025? For one thing, it is a real, unapologetically patriotic, focused, and genuinely positive plan – something to be for, in a world of hurt and things to be against.

For another, it reaffirms constitutional, economic law-and-order and accountability priorities dating back to Reagan’s time and Republicans’ 1994 “Contract with America,” both highly successful.

The roadmap is about returning to core values – hope, trusting the people, less government, lower taxes, safe streets, sound economy, solid borders, strong defense, no apologies for America.

If that is not enough, it recognizes that parents raise kids, not administrators, unions, or federal overlords. It speaks to respect for institutions like the Supreme Court, First and Second Amendments, the recent Dobbs decision – reversing Roe v. Wade, and checks-and-balances between branches.

To restore confidence, predictability, and prosperity, it sees citizenship as an honor worth preserving, work as a privilege, liberty key to the Republic, and the Bill of Rights as non-negotiable. Speech, worship, self-defense, travel, and being secure in our homes “against unreasonable searches and seizures,” are pivotal.

Specifically, it is built around four “pillars.” These are “an economy that’s strong,” “a nation that’s safe,” “a future that’s built on freedom,” and “a government that’s accountable.” Behind these pillars are flashing facts: inflation at a 40-year high driven by reckless overspending and a clampdown on energy; record murder, carjacking, violent crime, and drug overdose rates – crashing upward; 3.5 million illegal, unassimilated aliens across the southern border; and abuses of power that test our Constitution.

All this is hard to argue, and – in the old days – would not be argued. The race would be to see which party more fully embraced these common goals of energy independence, a secure economy, dollar low inflation, low interest, high employment, lower taxes, lower crime, drug trafficking, and illegal crossings, and greater t***sparency with no abuse of power, wild-eyed investigations, or unprecedented invasions.

But we are not in the old days, and one wonders – more or less, daily – what days we are in. The Democrat response to this agenda, a set of priorities that would be embraced by Reagan, Bush 41, and most American presidents, including Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy, is to blast it.

The reaction of Speaker Nancy Pelosi – incredibly – is to call these priorities “an extremist agenda.” Really? So, defunding police, disrespecting borders, destroying our credibility overseas, violating the Constitution, canceling citizen’s speech, criminalizing religious services, threatening Supreme Court justices, deriding decisions, pledging to pack the Court, spending 4 trillion dollars Americans do not have on what they do not want, attacking the energy sector, promoting at-birth a******n, crazy g****rs, and ending Title 9 are all what? Normal?

I guess the reality is this: Americans need to decide what kind of world they want to live in – the sort Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and yes, Donald Trump offered as a baseline, regardless of style differences, or the one Pelosi promotes, with runaway inflation, scary levels of crime, illegality of all kinds, no predictability, stability, safety, honor, respect for taxpayers, limits, or accountability.

For my money, family, v**e, and two cents, her world is something Orwell, Huxley, and the great dystopian writers warned about that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, atheists, and neo-c*******ts admire. That is not the future of America most hope to see, not one to which Americans should willingly commit anything. Not everything in this “Commitment to America” will please every v**er, but there is enough for everyone, and a great deal in that document reminds us how we got here and why we need to preserve what we know is proven, honest, stable, constitutional, and good. For my nickel, that is solid.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

The pussy Republicans just missed an opportunity. The CR was agreed to. The chicken s**ts should have demanded border security be included in the CR or shut down the government. People on both sides of the aisle want something done. McConnell needs tarred and feathered.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

Nothing promoted by Gingrich or Reagan has worked . It has failed miserably for the last 40 years.
To even bring this up is totally ridiculous.
With the exception of the top 10% who have done extremely well.
Only because Reagan lied when he said the money would trickle down to all of the peasants once the rich got all of their tax breaks.
It did not. He lied.
Things only got better for the already morbidly rich.
And continue to do so with no apparent effort whatsoever.
Go to bed millionaires …
Wake up Billionaires.!

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

LOL! Do you work at being dumb, or are you a natural?

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

You have been repeating this lie for so long that you actually believe it. Even data from the IRS disproves the tax break only benefited the wealthy.

Reagan never said "trickle-down economics," a phrase coined by the l*****ts and media. There is no such theory in economics known as "trickle down."

If the l*****t agenda works so well, why are blue states bleeding citizens to other states and hemorrhaging money despite ever-increasing taxes and worse services provided? Your very own Cleveland cesspool is a perfect example.

https://www.hoover.org/news/senator-phil-gramm-john-early-dispel-myths-income-ine******y-america

Senator Phil Gramm, Mathematical Economist John F. Early Dispel The Myths Of Income Ine******y In America
In the latest installment of the Hoover Book Club, former US senator Phil Gramm and mathematical economist John F. Early, coauthors (with Auburn University economist Robert Ekelund) of The Myth of American Ine******y: How Government Biases Policy Debate, joined George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics John B. Taylor in Hauck Auditorium for a discussion about their groundbreaking research.

Wednesday, September 28, 2022 2 min read
Myth
Hoover Institution (Stanford, CA) – In the latest installment of the Hoover Book Club, former US senator Phil Gramm and mathematical economist John F. Early, coauthors (with Auburn University economist Robert Ekelund) of The Myth of American Ine******y: How Government Biases Policy Debate, joined George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics John B. Taylor in Hauck Auditorium for a discussion about their groundbreaking research.

According to the US Census Bureau, the nation’s most important source on the measure of income and poverty, the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans receive 16.7 times more than those in the bottom quintile. However, as Gramm described in his presentation, this metric is hard to reconcile with findings from other government agencies. As an example, he pointed to a discrepancy between the Census Bureau’s annual number on household income (gross income received on a regular basis before government benefits) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ yearly figures on aggregate household consumption. In analyzing this data together and absent of other variables, he explained that one would conclude that the bottom 20 percent of households consume the equivalent of twice their income.

The reason for this discrepancy, Gramm asserted, is that it doesn’t account for income from government t***sfer payments, the level of which has exploded over the fifty-plus years since President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s declaration of the War on Poverty in 1964. Despite that average t***sfer payments per household on the bottom quintile have increased from $9,800 to $45,400 throughout this five-decade period, poverty rates have continued to oscillate between 11 and 15 percent, Graham explained.

The Census Bureau accounts for just $0.9 trillion of the $2.8 trillion in annual t***sfer payments in its calculations. The data excludes social security, tax credits, taxes not paid, food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid. It also doesn’t count income lost from people paying taxes to fund these programs. If it did, Gramm explained, the ratio of income ine******y would not be 16.7 to 1 between households with the highest and low-income levels but 4 to 1.

“You can debate how much income should be redistributed in a free society. It’s a legitimate debating point. But there is a big difference in debating it when the facts show that the ratio is 4 to 1 rather than 16.7 to 1,” Gramm said emphatically.

Moreover, if all such t***sfers were factored in by the census as income, its measure of poverty would be 2 to 3 percent in 2021 instead of 11.6 percent. According to Gramm, that 2 to 3 percent measure is largely reflective of people who are unable to be reached by antipoverty programs because they are afflicted with mental health and substance abuse problems.

Gramm argued that he and his colleagues’ research demonstrates that the American dream is still alive and well. Americans, especially at lower income strata, continue to enjoy ample opportunities for social mobility. He explained that among all of today’s American adults who were grew up in the bottom quintile, 93 percent now have a better standard of living than their parents; 62 percent have risen to a higher quintile; and 6.1 percent are now among the wealthiest Americans.

Early maintained that in addition to employment, other factors such as quantity of education, occupational choice, professional experience, savings, and other employment-related inequalities make up for a significant portion of this difference.

When adjusted for household size, the income differential is just 2.7 to 1 between the middle-income group and the bottom quintile. Moreover, on this size-adjusted basis, the bottom quintile receives 5 percent more than the second quintile. Early said that these small differences in income levels have caused disincentives among the lower ends of the distribution to find work.

Early concluded his presentation with an astonishing statistic, showing that 77 percent of households today, when adjusted for inflation, would have been in the top quintile five decades ago.

“That is a massive improvement in the prosperity of the American household over the last fifty years,” Early said.

American Vet

Good read…..thanks.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Excellent. Way to complex for Milostinka

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Like Shakira?
https://news.yahoo.com/shakira-faces-8-years-prison-172321814.html