text:
Peter Ferrara, Contributor
I cover public policy, particularly concerning economics.
Last week on June 14, President Obama announced his economic plan to finally bring economic recovery and growth to the U.S. in a much ballyhooed address in Cleveland. He threw down the gauntlet to Mitt Romney on the issue, saying "more than anything else, this election presents a choice between two fundamentally different visions of how to create strong sustained growth; how to pay down our long term debt; and most of all, how to generate good, middle-class jobs…."
Truer words have never been spoken by the President. So let's examine the two fundamentally different visions and see which can produce strong sustained growth, pay down our long term debt, and generate good, middle class jobs.
Under President Obama's plan, on January 1 of next year the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax will increase, as already enacted under current law. That is because the tax increases of Obamacare would go into effect, and the Bush tax cuts would expire, which Obama refuses to renew for singles making over $200,000 a year, and couples making over $250,000. The English translation of that target for the tax increases is the nation's small businesses, job creators and investors.
As a result, with the Bush tax cuts just expiring for these targeted taxpayers, the top 2 income tax rates would jump by nearly 20%, the capital gains tax would soar by nearly 60%, the tax on dividends would nearly triple, the Medicare payroll tax would skyrocket by 62% for the above disfavored taxpayers, and the top death tax rate would rise from the grave to 55%.
That is all on top of the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world at nearly 40%; counting the federal corporate rate of 35% and state corporate rates on average. But under Obama, there is no relief in sight. Instead, Obama is pushing still more tax increases. Under his proposed Buffett rule, the capital gains tax rate would increase by 100%, and would be the fourth highest in the industrialized world. Many OECD countries, in fact, impose no capital gains tax because it is just another layer of taxation on capital income on top of the corporate and individual income taxes. All of this would leave American businesses uncompetitive in the global economy.
How is this going to produce strong sustained growth and generate good middle class jobs? It is going to do just the opposite, as the multiple tax rate increases would only sharply reduce the incentive for productive activities, such as savings, investment, business expansion, business start ups, and job creation. That will simply encourage even more capital flight from the U.S., and a continued capital strike by the capital that remains. All this translates into yet another recession next year, with fewer jobs, rising unemployment, and soaring deficits and debt. This does not signal Obama fighting for the middle class; instead it points to him trashing the economic chances of the very voters whose favor he seeks.
The alternative GOP vision is spelled out in the budget produced by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, which was passed by the Republican controlled House, and is supported by Romney. That includes individual tax reform closing loopholes and reducing tax rates to 25% for couples earning over $100,000 per year, and 10% for those making less, and corporate tax reform slashing crony capitalist loopholes and reducing the 35% federal rate to an internationally competitive 25%. And then the aforementioned Obama tax increases would be repealed. CBO has scored these tax reforms as restoring federal revenues to their long term, postwar, historical average from 1948 to 2008 of 18.5% of GDP.
The reduced tax rates under such reform would produce exactly the opposite results of Obama's tax rate increases, increasing incentives for all of the above productive activities. That would restore traditional American prosperity and job creation as a result.
But in his speech in Cleveland, Obama opposed tax reform that would lower rates and close loopholes. He said it would be a tax increase on the middle class. The problem for Obama is that Ryan's tax reform plan does not involve any tax increase for the middle class. His plan cuts tax rates for every taxpayer, including those in the middle class. And that has always been the Republican position.
President Reagan cut tax rates across the board for everyone, including the middle class, and expanded the personal exemption, which benefits middle and lower income taxpayers the most. President Bush cut tax rates for everyone, and for lower income workers by a greater proportion than for higher income workers. As a result, by 2007, before President Obama had even entered office, official IRS data showed that the middle 20% of all income earners, the true middle class, paid only 4.7% of all federal income taxes.
The American public voted for 'Hope and Change" and they got precisely what they voted for. President Obama has given them a huge amount of hope and lots of change, (instead of folding money).
"Is draining all of that money out of the private sector really going to create strong sustained growth, pay down our long term debt, and generate good, middle-class jobs?"
Forty-seven years ago, LBJ and the Democrats passed the War on Poverty, and began taking an average of $220 billion each year out of the productive economy. (At that time $220 billion each year was a lot of money.) For thirty years, the actual poverty rate wavered up and down, but the immediate effect of the WoP was to cause the markets (DJIA) to flatline for severteen years with three recessions culminating in the Carter Catastrophe. Reagan cut taxes and reduced regulations, restored investment capital, and the economy took off like a rocket. The Democrats (Tip O'Neill) refused to end the WoP, and at the end of eight Reagan years, the increase in the national debt was almost exactly the amount wasted on LBJ's corrupt War on Poverty. Democrats blamed Reagan for the increase in the national debt. In 1995, Clinton took credit for ending the War on Poverty, after more trillions of dollars had been corruptly wasted by Democrats.
So, the solution is to keep the status quo and hope for the best?
Or, is it to cut taxes further and watch as everyone just pockets the money because of the uncertainty caused by an obstructionist GOP?
Reagan may have cut taxes, but then exploded the deficit and raised taxes more than a dozen times over his eight years. I'm not going to defend a 70% tax rate for the top bracket, but Reagan is not the angel the GOP is trying to turn him into. Reagan wouldn't even be taken seriously as a candidate in today's radical right wing. Then Bush Sr. lost his second term because he too had to raise taxes to try to pay for what Reagan had done.
So, Clinton presided over one of the higher tax periods in recent history and the economy boomed during his Presidency. Then Bush Jr. took office, slashed taxes and started two wars without figuring out how to pay for any of it. Bush Jr. also ordered Fanny and Freddie to back loans that the GSE's knew were bad news and the economy tanked when the housing bubble burst.
Now we have Obama increasing spending at the slowest rate in history. Yes, he spent money on a meager stimulus, much like TARP. Yes, he spent tax payer money on investing in the American car industry which ultimately saved tens of thousands of jobs and helped establish the US as one of the top car producers again. Finally, the ACA, which everyone hates by name and loves by context, is working and savings are already materializing. So, explain to me how going back to the Bush Jr. policies is going to help the economy. Don't just blast Obama with fear mongering. Historically speaking, cutting taxes does not stimulate growth. Even more contextually, the vast majority of small business owners make less than $100,000 per year. Why would we not target that group for lower taxes since they need the help?
Now that's quite enough Mr. Ferrara. Art Laffer and Steve Moore?? You've got to be kidding. Did you forget David Stockman or Bruce Bartlett? You need to take both hands and get a grip. Art Laffer and his trickle down nonsense is responsible for most the mess we're in now. As for Steve Moore, well, those that heard him speak will know instantly what their dealing with.
In regard to Bush. I found myself raging at his policies many times but in regard to the wars I really only raged at one, Iraq. Do you think the United States should not have responded to the attack on U.S. soil? REALLY? How popular would that have been with the American people? I agree that it should have been funded though – when a nation goes to war, soldiers should not be the only ones making a sacrifice.
Other stuff: Reagan was not a god and Obama is not a god. Clinton was not a god and Bush was not a devil. Surprisingly enough, like among the rest of us mere mortals, we find that good and bad, wisdom and folly can reside in the same person. That applies to groups as well. The American people are becoming the casualties of war, collateral damage, in the war between these two parties. We had better start talking and listening to each other in terms of finding solutions instead of listening so much to politicians who are vying for votes and waiting for either of these parties to be our savior. Their solutions typically – either way – cost us too much time, too much angst, too much money, and too much pain and leave the taxpayers of this country open to massive fraud and abuse at all levels. Those we give the power to protect us and manage us we also give the power to abuse and take advantage of us – ask the many celebrities and athletes who have blindly delegated management duties to others.
We need to regroup more strategically – not around class, religion, ethnicity, gender, age or any other grouping – but around demand for responsible behavior of politicians and citizens. I'm utterly sick of the blame games in whatever form they take. I don't intend to defend policies from either side that don't make this a stronger, better country. I don't intend to defend people of any group whose behavior does not do the same. In my observation, groups usually end up protecting and justifying the worst among their group and don't holding them accountable for the same behavior they would demonized another group for doing (kind of like in families where an attack on one is an attack on all even when you know the person is wrong) while, at the same time and usually justifiably so, viewing their own group by the best and most exemplary among that group. Tragically, that view seems to reverse itself when considering other groups.
I don't care what the ethnic compostion of this country is in 20 years but I do care that America is still here and providing opportunities for its citizens (as a matter of disclosure, I'm white). I'm a preschool teacher and I have students from many different ethnic groups and even foreign countries; I want the same good things for every one of those kids. We're wasting their futures while politicians play stupid games and serve their own self interests. I made the change to teaching preschool because I profoundly believed that what this country needs most is more good, responsible, well-behaved, productive, self-reliant citizens and I wanted to help parents in that task (this doesn't just happen on its own, it's a vitally important work) but, as I tell friends, lately I feel like I'm helping raise lambs for the slaughter. I see their future slipping away while our country plays silly games where nobody wins, especially them.
I want to be part of a group that views policies in terms of ultimate good to the country as an entity – a healthy, thriving, cohesive organism – rather than what benefits any specific group or groups by dividing the spoils of sick and dying nation. In that model, everyone eventually loses and pretty rapidly. What's given to one comes at a cost to others. I want to be part of a group that honestly looks at where things and people need to change apart from any labels and without judgments or accusations as to whether the people themselves are good or bad but rather judge whether actions and practices are good or bad and need to be changed. I fully comprehend that the capacity for good and bad runs right through the middle of each of us and is always, always a choice. I want this country to thrive and it has the ability to do that. I want that to happen even at the expense of more personal sacrifice to myself for a greater REAL good not just something that gets votes.
I'm middle-class, that class that was never really noticed until now. The faux concern for the middle-class among politicians of both parties is vexing to me. They don't know what to do with this group other than make talking-points because they've never had to and were never expected to by the people who reside there. How am I helped if they take more money from me to "help" me in a vague, yet-to-be-determined way? Taxing isn't the only way to shift money from individuals to government, thousands of hidden, passed on costs – sneak attack via SNEAKY TAXES that aren't called taxes and don't have to pass through Congress. I don't see any way that the middle-class doesn't end up bearing more and more of the burden of others bad choices and bad behavior – in government and among those above them and those below them economically – in addition to growing needs they're addressing among family and friends that they're handling themselves because that's what responsible people do rather than shift those burdens to others. As a society we need to shift our focus quickly to building better people who act better and make better decisions at all levels and act responsibly toward their country and other citizens. How did we move so quickly from JFK's, "Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country" to "Ask what your country can do for you but not what you can do for your country." Oh yeah, it was the vote gathering and campaign funding. We need less victim-thinking and more victor-thinking.
So by this reasoning we can see how this radical leftist got
elected. Missing the whole picture of who this guy is and where he came from and zeroing in on the tax and spend policies
of the Dems. What you don't recognize is the infiltration of
the radical left who are bent on destroying this, what used to be,
the freest nation on earth. Pure democracies have always
failed as soon as the populace discover they can vote for them-selves largess from the public treasury. As Franklin
told a woman who asked him after coming out of the constitutional convention, " Well mr. Franklin, what have you
given us? A Republic madam, if you can keep it."
Well with unprincipled polititions we didn't " keep it"
You are absolutely correct. It was Republican Nixon who took the country off gold standard and began the dollar destruction process, Republican Reagan replaced Democrat Carter-appointed Volcker with Greenspan, racked up a gigantic deficit by his "spend but don't tax" policy and presided over the S&L debacle and Republican George W. turned the Democrat Clinton's surplus into a monstrous deficit by his tax giveaways to the super-rich, off-budget Iraq war and corporate bailouts. In fact, the Republican economic track record has been absolutely dismal no matter what the Wall Streeters may think.
And now they are blaming Obama for not waving a magic wand and turning the economy around even though they have steadfastly blocked his every step since day one with the openly expressed intent of making his presidency fail.
Interestingly enough, Romney, who openly wanted Detroit to go bankrupt, now claims credit for its recovery. Talk about cheek! He also insists that every president should have "business experience" although FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford or Clinton never ran a business. Truman had a failed hat shop. Carter had a peanut farm but Romney doesn't talk about him, nor does he mention George W. who ran an oil company into ground, if such experience counts.
And what about Romney's own experience? Bain Capital is nothing but a corporate chop shop and is this how he would run the government, too – selling California to China, Washington to Japan and Texas to Saudi Arabia while keeping a hefty chunk of the proceeds for himself and his friends?
One participant on this board has also opined that "lower tax rates have consistently created economic booms". Presumably he has the economic "boom" which followed the Bush tax cut in mind but his opinion is not borne out by facts. Actually today's tax rates are among the lowest for almost a century which had peaked during the Eisenhower-Kennedy era at over 90% when America's economy was doing pretty good, no matter what the Tea Partiers may howl about.
"Bush Jr. also ordered Fanny and Freddie to back loans that the GSE's knew were bad news and the economy tanked when the housing bubble burst."
Please read this story.
From Jet Magazine, September 12, 1994, regarding a settlement by DOJ Janet Reno with banks. The settlement forced banks to provide loans to unqualified individual debtors. "Red Lining" is a code word used by progressive fascists intended to intimidate banking officials into submission. "You, Mr.private lender, give these people loans, even if they are not qualified, or we (the government) will sue your ass because that's how we fascists progressives rule corporations and command & control the economy."
If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove that you were not a racist, you need to vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 to prove that you're not an idiot.
can you kindly explain how did we get in to this economic situation bofore president Obama got in to power ?
Hello Showme,
What taxes did Reagan raise? You say 8 and provide none, which seems strange given your moniker. Show me the Data!
The economy under Carter was in a hell of a mess and already receding with government debt exploding. Along with growing unemployment came soaring rates of inflation, caused by the US Government running massive deficits at the height of the business cycle.
And how did Reagan handle the problem: With Tax Cuts. And the result was an economy that produced large numbers of private sector jobs over the course of his terms and well into the terms of others. And how has Obama fared with his economic program of huge increases in government expenditure and debt? How many jobs has this moron created? Maybe Obama should have tried tax cuts, for businesses that pay the among the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
So you imagine that tax cuts do nothing to stimulate the economy. Only in your fantasy world.
Reagan had to fight 2 recessions over his terms. He had to overcome the high unemployment, high inflation, soaring deficits, weak US status that Carter left him. He defeated the Soviet Union and put the US back on top militarily, financially, politically, With Tax Cuts. With the economy growing by leaps, Reagan's debt to GDP ratio declined rapidly in his later terms, and continued that trend through the 90's. .
Bush Sr. and Clinton both raised taxes. This had little effect on deficits. It was the curtailment of government expenditure that eventually overcame the deficits. Bush Jr. slashed taxes and the economy boomed, and sadly so did government expenditure. But I suppose he had to fight 2 wars, one with the Taliban reluctant to hand over Bin Laden.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run by Democrats. They pushed housing ownership among those least able to manage it. And what a fine result. Bush and the Republicans should have reigned them in, but like any politician just let the ball keep rolling.
Hello Ulysses,
The Republican record has been so dismal such that the Republicans have occupied the Presidential office for most of the last 30 years. Right Ulysses! You are so wise. Look at the fine mess that Cater handed Reagan, and look at the magic wand Reagan waved at it and returned the US to its rightful prominence. And look at the pathetic performance of Obama's magic wand. The Democrats won't occupy the WH for a generation after this utterly abhorrent result. What a disaster! Time to step aside and let the Republicans do their thing, which is saving the US from further Democrat disasters.
The Republicans really blocked Obama's every move when the Democrats held superior numbers in both houses. That makes perfect sense. They still hold a majority in the Senate. But as we can all see, not one Democrat would vote for Obama's budget. But it's the Republicans that thwart him.
And Obama in one year surpassed all the deficits accumulated during Bush's two terms fighting terrorist threats, but it's the Republicans that are to blame.
Bush's share of TARP was repaid long ago, leaving his final year's deficit at $160 billion.
Why do you morons bother to show up?
The expiration of Bush's tax cuts must be a central part of any effort to restore the economy. The trickle-down theory has not worked – plain and simple. If it had, the Bush tax custs would have generated a boom, not the largest recession in US history.
Name calling and slanted analysis – like that described in this article – are unproductive and do not further the collective discussion.
"Cutting tax rates increases the incentives for increased production, and so creates economic growth and prosperity. "
This has been sorely disproved by US economic history. Capital gains, corporate and top marginal tax rates have all been lowered over the last 30 years (the latter has been reduced to nearly half) and GDP has not grown any faster and job growth has in fact been slower. Businesses will invest when there is demand, and hold off on hiring when there is lack thereof, regardless of the tax rate.
In fact, the post-World War 2 boom took place with a top marginal tax rate of well over 90% and capital gains and corporate taxes both much higher than they are now. What's more: this increase in tax rates (and high unionization) also coincides with the actual creation of a viable middle class here in the US. Since implementing top marginal/corporate/capital gains 'Reagonomics' tax cuts, we've seen income disparity here in the US return to pre-New Deal levels.
As for your selective data points: During times of economic recovery the economy increases. This happens regardless of tax rates. Citing that a tax cut happened just as the economy was recovering does nothing to help your case.
Under Reagan, the economy went into recession because the federal reserve raised interest rates and it climbed out of recession because it lowered them. This economic 'boom' was nothing more than a recovery and it is dwarfed by the boom that happened under Clinton (and this happens after he raised taxes on the top earners). As for Kennedy, well lowering taxes from the 90th percentile down to the 70th percentile may have been a good thing (90% does seem high).
And I guess you're not going to mention that Moody's Analytics forecasted that Obama's jobs plan (the American Jobs Act) would create 1.9 million jobs?
And instead you're going to repeat the long-since refuted GOP talking points like "The English translation of that target for the tax increases is the nation's small businesses, job creators and investors." – Only about 3% of small business would actually be affected by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top earners, which would place them back at the level they were under the Clinton boom (and still low by historical stanards).
How much were you paid to write this op-ed piece Pete? If anyone hasn't figured out that you are a huckster for the Koch brothers, than they are probably stupid.. Sadly, some people actually believe this garbage. Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute… pfft. Lead they way for your "masters" to truly bring us to fascism. How about you hop off the 1%'s wrinkly old nutsack? d-bag!
I suggest an experiment: Let the tax cuts expire and see what happens. Economic literature (by which I mean journal articles, not the ideological BS we see here) is divided on the issue. The Clinton tax increases were followed by an economic boom and a balanced budget. The Bush tax cuts were followed by lackluster economic growth and staggering deficits.
So, let's try reverting to Clinton era tax rates and see what happens.
Response to dallasdunlap:
We don't need to experiment because the past 80 years of world history have been the experiment you suggest. As the author states, lower tax rates have consistently created economic booms (perhaps you think that is just coincidental). And high, confiscatory tax rates to fund gargantuan government social programs have resulted in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain (perhaps you think that is also coincidental). All you have to do is open your eyes and look at what is happening right now in Europe and you will see the future of Obama's (and the Democrat Party's) economic philosophy.
By the way, now that we are in an election year, we see some Democrats distancing themselves from this colossal failure of a president, hoping to fool the American people into thinking they, as Democrats, are not also responsible for our economy. In fact, every Democrat in Congress, in both the House and Senate, has marched in goose step behind Obama for the past three years. In this 2012 election, a vote for a Democrat, at any level of government, federal or state, is a vote for your own economic destruction.
menschmachine – Actually, the periods of economic growth and expansion, as well as fiscally responsible budgeting, have come when tax rates were much higher than today. The Clinton era economy was much better than the Bush II economy over comparable time periods.
You would be hard put to find a time when cutting taxes clearly led to economic growth. The Kennedy example is compromised by the fact that we were building up for the Vietnam War when the tax cuts took effect.
And the Reagan example is compromised by the fact that the economic expansion simply followed Fed policy, that the cuts led to massive deficits, and that the cuts were ultimately offset by tax increases under Reagan.
So, let's experiment.
Response to dallasdunlap:
You are factually wrong to say "the periods of economic growth and expansion, as well as fiscally responsible budgeting, have come when tax rates were MUCH HIGHER [emphasis mine] than today. The two examples that refute your statement (Kennedy and Reagan) you dismiss out of hand as "compromised". According to you, the Viet Nam war caused an economic boom, not lowering tax rates. So, using your logic, the Democrats should start another war! So why do you Democrats deride the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (where is Cindy Sheehan now that Obama is running berserk with drones)? And don't you Democrats believe that deficit spending creates national wealth? V P Lunch Bucket Joe believes so! He said we have to borrow and deficit spend our way out of the economic mess caused by borrowing and deficit spending!
And, if higher tax rates create more prosperity, why not have a flat tax of say 50%. We'll be so much more prosperous then, right. And what about a tax rate of 100%? Won't we all be so much more prosperous? I guess we'll all be millionaires and billionaires then! Don't you understand that Democrat fiscal and economic policy violates common sense? If the government taking more money makes us more wealthy, why doesn't the government just take all of our money? Oh wait, they tried that already; it was called Soviet Russia. It sure worked out for them, didn't it!
Hello Dallass,
So Reagan's tax cuts led to higher deficits. That didn't have anything to do with Carter creating large deficits during his regime, and passing them along to Reagan along with a soaring inflation that meant getting the same by expending so much more?
The Reagan tax cuts re-energized the US economy and created 20 million jobs, good tax paying and mostly private sector jobs. You say it failed because deficits rose. Well, having to deal with 2 recessions will do that. Having to deal with a soaring inflation problem will exacerbate the figures. Reagan always felt he could have done more to curtail government expenditures. However, he did destroy the Soviet Union. But at the end of Reagan's term, debt to GDP levels droppe and continued to do so as a much larger economy grew to handle the deficits. Now that's how one solves the problems of an economy in decline. 3 ½ years after Obama took office, everyone is waiting for the economy to stop slowing.
Well said, economart!
A comparison of two presidents, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama:
Reagan's legacy:
1) he destroyed the Soviet Union
2) he started a 25 year long economic expansion that was he greatest is human history
Obama's legacy:
1) he violated US bankruptcy law by re-ordering the standing of creditors and awarding GM stock ownership to the United Auto Workers Union (in accordance with Marxist theorist Leon Trotsky's writings that workers should control the means of production).
2) Obama violated the War Powers Act by launching an attack on Libya without first consulting Congress
3) Obama violated the Constitution when he unilaterally declared the Congress to be in recess and made "recess appointments." The Congress was not in recess.
4) Obama ordered his Department of Justice to cease enforcement of the Defence of Marriage Act, a law passed by Congress and Signed by President Bill Clinton.
5) Obama (or his senior advisers) have disclosed sensitive national security information compromising US national security.
6) Obama's DOJ has refused to comply with lawful subpoenas for information on the Fast and Furious program (allegedly initiated as a ploy to justify sweeping gun control measures in the US).
7) Obama refused to enforce immigration law and is awarding de facto amnesty by fiat decree (this violates Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which states "The Congress shall have Power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the Unites States." [see point #1 - Obama apparently likes violating this clause more than the others].
8) Obama's DOJ will again violate the Constitution and US immigration law by refusing to deport non-citizen spouses of gay Americans.
9) Obama's DOJ violates the Constitution and federal drug laws by refusing to prosecute medical marijuana users or suppliers in states where legalized (refusal to enforce Federal drug laws).
10) Obama's DOJ reinterpreted law so as to legalize Internet gambling (illegal under Wire Act of 1961, baring betting across state lines using telecommunications devices, and the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, banning American banks from processing payments to online casinos.)
11) Education – Obama's Sec of Ed Arne Duncan granted waivers to 10 states freeing them from meeting No Chile Left Behind legal requirements, thereby nullifying by fiat federal education law passed by Congress and signed by the president.
Obama's legacy is really a compilation of dictatorial acts, contemning the Constitution he swore to uphold, and governing in the model of Mao Tse Tung and Hugo Chavez.
Hello Menschmachine,
And of Obama's firsts do read on. I think he will be going to jail soon after the election.
Yes, he's historic, alright.
• First President to Violate the War Powers Act
• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government
• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels
• First President to issue an unlawful "recess-appointment" while the U.S. Senate remained in session (against the advice of his own Justice Department).
• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
• First president to intentionally disable credit card security measures in order to allow over-the-limit donations, foreign contributions and other illegal fundraising measures.
• First President to Defy a Federal Judge's Court Order to Cease Implementing the 'Health Care Reform' Law
• First President to halt deportations of illegal aliens and grant them work permits, a form of stealth amnesty roughly equivalent to "The DREAM Act", which could not pass Congress
• First President to Sign a Law Requiring All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party
• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on 'Shovel-Ready' Jobs — and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs
• First President to sue states for requiring valid IDs to vote, even though the same administration requires valid IDs to travel by air
• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters
• First President to sign into law a bill that permits the government to "hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without any form of due process. No indictment. No judge or jury. No evidence. No trial. Just an indefinite jail sentence."
• First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat
• First President to Threaten Insurance Companies After They Publicly Spoke out on How Obamacare Helped Cause their Rate Increases
• First President to Openly Defy a Congressional Order Not To Share Sensitive Nuclear Defense Secrets With the Russian Government
• First President to Threaten an Auto Company (Ford) After It Publicly Mocked Bailouts of GM and Chrysler
• First President to "Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions"
• First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees
• First President to Terminate America's Ability to Put a Man into Space.
• First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places
• First President to Have a Law Signed By an 'Auto-pen' Without Being "Present"
• First President to send $200 million to a terrorist organization (Hamas) after Congress had explicitly frozen the money for fear it would fund attacks against civilians.
• First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It
• First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State They Are Allowed to Locate a Factory
• First President to refuse to comply with a House Oversight Committee subpoena.
• First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)
• First President to Withdraw an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been Properly Issued Years Ago
• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case
• First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts
• First President to Preside Over America's Loss of Its Status as the World's Largest Economy (Source: Peterson Institute)
• First President to Have His Administration Fund an Organization Tied to the Cop-Killing Weather Underground
• First President to allow Mexican police to conduct law enforcement activities on American soil
• First president to propose budgets so unreasonable that not a single representative from either party would cast a vote in favor ("Senate unanimously rejected President Obama's budget last year in 0-97 vote", Politico, "House Votes 414-0 to Reject Obama's Budget Plan", Blaze)
• First President to press for a "treaty giving a U.N. body veto power over the use of our territorial waters and rights to half of all offshore oil revenue" (The Law Of The Sea Treaty)
• First President to Golf 90 or More Times in His First Three Years in Office
But remember: he will not rest until all Americans have jobs, affordable homes, green-energy vehicles, and the environment is repaired, etc., etc., etc.
Mr. Ferrara,
The US economy has been in decline since at least 1970. Consider the table below. The percentage of Americans working in manufacturing was fairly constant from 1940 to 1980 but declined after that to the current 3.8%. The top corporate tax rate and top individual rates were at their respective highest between 1950 and 1960, the period of greatest economic and industrial prosperity in the US. Lowering tax rates has not increased manufacturing employment.
(Sorry if these columns do not line up in this format)
1 = Total Population in Millions
2 = Percent Employed in Manufacturing
3 = Top Corporate Rate
4= Top Individual Rate
Taxes are clearly not the problem. Cutting taxes clearly did not encourage manufacturers to increase operations and employment, the exact opposite occurred. As personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, and capital gains tax rates have declined, manufacturing has decline in parallel.
The reason is that jobs are only created in the private sector when it is profitable to hire more workers. There is currently plenty of job creation in the private sector, in China, India, Brazil, Russia & other parts of the world. There is little or no job creation in the US because US based investors put their capital where the return is the highest. Return on capital is highest, especially for manufacturing, where wages are the lowest. It is low wages of the BRIC areas that is drawing investment and jobs.
To illustrate my point, consider how many manufacturers are fleeing eastern China where wages are climbing. They are moving either further inland to western or southern China or to other countries. Are there more Chinese regulations in eastern China as compared to western China? Is the regulatory burden less in Vietnam. No, as the linked article makes clear, they are moving because of wages – plain and simple.
The bottom line is that the US economy been in decline for decades, long before Mr. Obama came into office. There is nothing he nor Gov. Romney can do to change that.
This sounds like a structural shift. While I agree with your assessment that a primary driver for manufacturing has more to do with wage rates than tax rates, it seems you are discounting the entire service sector that has replaced the hard manufacturing economy that we had mid century. I don't see why a shift in manufacturing jobs to other countries has anything to do with the long term outlook in the US.
Hello Mr. Walker,
The world of economics is not like the ice cream store Baskin-Robbins where if one were go in one day and notice that one's favorite flavor, say black walnut, was no longer for sale, it would not be too much of a difference to now select pistachio instead. It is all basically frozen custard at the end of the day and it is just a matter of the flavor, a personal preference.
Manufacturing is an entirely different sort of economic activity than any other, one that transforms a country. When a factory is constructed to say manufacture automobiles, it does not merely employ workers to assemble those vehicles, materials are purchased, electricity, and so forth. The wages earned by those workers create secondary markets for housing, food, &c. Manufacturing also employs large numbers people and has in the US in any event, paid pretty good wages. It has a positive ripple effect of stimulating economic activities in other sectors and regions. No other type of economic activity has the same effect. This is why countries like China and India are encouraging the growth of manufacturing.
The service sector does not produce the same effects that manufacturing does. It does not consume goods produced by other companies and it does not employ large numbers of people nor pay them particularly well. The US economy has seen the transition from manufacturing to service over the last 50 years and it has not worked out well for large sectors of the economy or regions of the US.
Manufacturing is what made the US the most power nation on earth and a service sector economy will not keep it there.
Logically, wages should eventually level out around the world in a global economy. It's a painful trek for high wage countries until that time is reached.
To Colin's point about service industry. Somebody needs to produce real goods that others need and want and that must occur in order for service industries to exist and thrive.
Hello pamelajean,
Yes, that is already occurring right now[1]. However, it may be many decades before that has too much of an impact on the United States [3]. In regards to the service sector, it simply not equivalent to the manufacturing sector. The service sector *services* an economy that does something else, one cannot have a service sector without some base economy for it to service. Further, the when manufacturing grows, it has ripple effect throughout the entire economy. When a factory goes up, durable goods are purchased, construction expands, raw materials are obtained, all of which expands other businesses, including other manufacturers and the service sector. This same effect is not achieved with any other economic activity. This is why China, India, Brazil, and Mexico are all fighting to get industry to locate there but not the service sector.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2011/06/05/chinese-entrepreneurs-are-leaving-china/
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/06/06/china.labor.foxconn/index.html
[3] http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/05/24/seattle-is-leading-an-american-manufacturing-revival/
Hello David,
Well, wages are lowest in Africa. Why have not all the US manufacturing jobs gone to Asia? Why is there still manufacturing jobs in the US. Your theory dictates the end of manufacturing in the US, yet many jobs remain.
Because your theory is wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. That's why you live in your mother's basement.
Because ALL manufacturing has not moved overseas then David's theory is wrong? Who really doesn't have any idea what they're talking about.
Many of the manufacturing jobs that remain are in small to mid-size companies who still have a market in the U.S. – usually in specialized products or goods and it would not be economically justifiable to relocate. Mass-produced and mass-consumed items that require less speicalized skills and therefore offered vast numbers of jobs account for most of the manufacturing jobs that have gone elsewhere I suspect.
As we're finding out, service jobs are as easy to export as manufacturing jobs – possibly easier since many can be done from anywhere by computer and there are not expenses and logistical issues such as those involved with shipping manufactured goods. What do we have left then?
Hello Pamela,
So all those auto plants operated by the Japanese in the US, some of their most profitable, don't count? Gee, why do all those UAW plants need a bailout, but not the Japanese plants? Boeing?
Here is some info on US manufacturing. The US is still the world's largest manufacturer of goods. But that's okay. You go on and agree with David. It makes him feel like he has a friend.
The situation is a little more complicated than David makes out. The problem with the US is that the tax rates and regulations are so onerous, socorporations can easily find a more profitable manufacturing venue. If tax rates were not so high, corporations could take that money and spend it on new and better plants and equipment that will easily erase any wage advantage. Similarly with regulations.
But the US government would rather keep corporate tax rates among the highest in the world so they can invest in all that useless green technology that does not work without massive government subsidies. But it is good for a political party in need of election money.
In Obama's infinite wisdom, he prefers to redistribute cash from job creators and investors to people who preferentially buy recreational drugs (no sales tax revenues) and imported goods from China sold at WalMart (no stimulus to U.S. manufacturers).
The man is just a genius before his time.
Yes, it would make a lot more sense to tax workers more so that people who inherit wealth or gamble on the stock market would get a break.
Fanofjobcreators – By "job creators" you mean rich guys. Giving rich guys more and more money will not create jobs unless they invest that money in something that requires employees. And they won't do that unless they can make a profit. They can't make a profit if the labor force is too broke to buy anything. The current problem is deficient demand.
Hello FanofJobCreators,
Lowering my capital gains tax, the corporate tax rates, or my personal tax rate, will not change that equation.
The reason that this is so is because workers are hired by companies for the most part, not individuals, including individual millionaires. They do pay their employees from their personal income after it has been taxed but from money taken the business income before it has been taxed. The way I have told it works best is for a business to take the gross income, pay expenses like salaries, supplies, rent and what not, set aside reserves for future investment (if possible) and from what is left, the net income, take personal income. In this manner, the wages of employees come out before corporate taxes and the personal taxes are paid, lowering the overall tax basis.
Here is a similar analysis from what you might consider a more reliable source, a fellow blogger here at Forbes.com.
Were I to own a gas station which was open 24/7, would need 21 8 hour shifts a week. I would need about five, perhaps six, employees to cover everything, including sick time. If I sell 1,000,000 gallons per week at 4.00 USD/g, then my weekly gross income is 4 MUSD. However I am purchasing the gasoline at 3.90 USD/g so I have only have only earned 100,000 USD that week. If I now subtract wages of my six employees who each work a 40 hour shift at 10 USD/hr that is 2,400 USD less or 97,600 USD. There are other expenses like electricity, workers compensation, and so forth so let us say the net business profit for the week is 90,000 USD, let us say 20,000 USD which would give me an annual income of just over 1 MUSD. From this I take my personal income and and by the maximum rate of 36%.
If my personal income tax rate were to be cut in half, how many new employees would I hire? None. Why? I am already selling as much gasoline as I can, adding additional workers would not result in any increase in sales. Further, adding additional workers will actually decrease my profits because the amount I pay in wages will go up but gross income will not. Cutting my personal income tax rate will just mean that I get to keep more of my personal income but it will not result in any increased employment. The same could be said of capital gains taxes.
This is the key point, lower the personal income tax rates on millionaires will not provide any benefits to society as a whole but will result in increased deficits for government.
Hello Dallass,
And high corporate taxes and crushing regulations have nothing to do with it. And why not lower the tax rates and put more money into the hands of those that know what to do with it? That should raise the myth of deficient demand, would it not?
There are export markets. Why not export all those profitable goods to those nations that will buy them?
Always reasoning so well, Dallass! Why you'd give my 3 year old niece a run for her money.
Hello David Duh LiAr,
So that's how it works. With the gas business now more profitable, the owner will just stuff his money under a mattress. He won't put it in the bank, so that a lender might have more money with which to fund a growing business like oil discovery and production in the Bakken? He won't buy a new and larger home, creating jobs in the construction business. He won't retire any of the debts on his current business, making it more profitable. He won't personally invest any of the funds in a new gas station, pooling resources and creating greater returns.
No. He won't do any of these things in David's little fantasy land where we make the facts fit the David's childish little theory.
Your mother must be so proud of you, were you 4 years of age.
Peter Ferrara is the epitome of a partisan hack, writing propaganda pieces that twist and omit facts to support a failed political ideology that he and his ilk cling to like religion. One of his claims to fame/infamy is that he used to write puff pieces in support of whatever corruption his buddy Jack Abramoff happened to be involved in at the time. Now Ferrara commits his efforts to disseminating predictable distortions about the economy and blatant lies about scientific matters, especially climate change through his work for the laughable Heartland Institute. Forbes should be embarrassed to publish such inane drivel about important issues and to give people like this a platform to mislead the general public.
Peter Ferrara is the epitome of a partisan hack, writing propaganda pieces that twist and omit facts to support a failed political ideology that he and his ilk cling to like religion. One of his claims to fame/infamy is that he used to write puff pieces in support of whatever corruption his buddy Jack Abramoff happened to be involved in at the time. Now Ferrara commits his efforts to disseminating predictable distortions about the economy and blatant lies about scientific matters, especially climate change through his work for the Heartland Institute and its anti-democratic parent organization American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Forbes should be embarrassed to publish such inane drivel about important issues and to give people like this a platform to mislead the general public and tear the nation apart.
mattslevi – I suspect Ferrara gets published for two reasons: 1.) Forbes management is rightwing to the point of looniness and 2.) Look at Ferrara's page views. Anti-Obama claptrap and anti science gibberish attracts page views. Advertising is sold on the basis of page views.
Forbes is an advertising sales device. Content is just a way to attract viewers to sell to advertisers.
Oh the geniuses speak! You both should be writing great articles for Forbes whilst winning Nobel prizes — NOT.
Why is it that those on the lowest rungs intellectually always fancy themselves so much smarter than those on the highest? Obama thinks like that too.
It's too bad neither side can work together to find common ground. We don't need huge tax increases, but neither do we need zero tax changes or reforms. Seriously! I hate to say it, but even if Romney and the Republicans manage to gain control of the White House and Congress, Democrats will just fillibuster everthing just like the Republicans are doing now. It's a shame but we have a coup in the US congress, and it is called the fillibuster. The Constitution says that a majority vote should pass laws, but we now require a super majority for anything to get done. You are looking at the future of our do nothing system, and it's not going ot get any better. Everytime I hear Republican zealots saying that the Democrats will have to come to their way of thinking or nothing, I just remind myself that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. We are all in trouble with the staus quo as it is.
I wasn't aware that Forbes allowed {sophists} to make commentary in their pages. Your going to need a calculator to add up all the untruths Peter Ferrara inserted here. Let's just call out one untruth here and now. Reagan did lower taxes, but that was in the works long before he got into office. Thank you Jack Kemp. Reagan had the benefit of having a strong Fed Reserve Chairman that knew how to spur economic growth. Simply raise interest rates and squeeze inflation out of the market and then drop the rates once inflation had drown. While Paul Volker was doing that, Reagan and Congress spent like no tomorrow of defense. Huge defense spending, so big they rebuilt WWII battleships. Yeah, the Great Reagan was a Keynesian. Mr. Ferrara, get some rest.
Ok, that's it. Just contributed $100 to Romney's campaign. We need to Obama out of the WH.
Colin Walker – The chief benefit of electing Romney is that we would no longer have to listen Republicans pretending to care about the deficit.
Hello Dallass the Dunce,
Its not the size of the deficit that should worry. Its the size of government expenditures. And they have grown so much these last 3 years, haven't they?
Response to dallasdunlap
You Democrats really despise "rich guys", don't you. It appears you prefer a society (North Korea, Cuba) where "rich guys" get their comeuppance when the government steals and redistributes their wealth (sorry to use a dirty word like "wealth").
It appears you are as big a Socialist as Obama, who is at war with wealth (sorry again for the curse word) and job creators. Obama and the Democrats have now become the party of Socialism and are using the tax code as the mechanism to redistribute wealth. The heavy progressive tax rates and class warfare (i.e., "rich guys" are inherently bad and oppressors of the working man) are straight out of Das Kapital and Marx's Communist Manifesto.
Yes, "rich guys" really do create wealth. Try this experiment; the next time you go to McDonalds, ask for a job from the person taking your order at the counter. Rather than giving you a job, he or she will probably refer you to the "rich guy" (in this case, the manager, who acts in the interests of the "rich guy"). You see, the "rich guy" is the one with the "capital" necessary to create jobs.
And "rich guys" (individuals) do hire employees by investing their money in businesses. Rich guys buy stock and this provides capital for corporations to expand (hire employees). Rich guys also buy bonds, which again, provides capital for corporations to expand (hire employees). Rich guys even have savings accounts, and the banks loan that money to small corporations, partnerships and sole proprietors to start an expand businesses (hire employees). Rich guys also create business ventures directly, thereby hiring employees. That's how capitalism works.
When the government confiscates and redistributes that wealth (Socialism), the "rich guys" have less to put into job creation (either directly or indirectly) and the economy suffers (people cannot find jobs). Contrary to the Socialist dogma of the Democrat Party, history proves that lower tax rates, including for "rich guys", in fact create prosperity for everyone.
mensmachine – I don't despise rich guys but I don't think they're all that.
I don't believe that there is any particular benefit in lowering their taxes yet again when the government is running such large deficits.
To the extent that there is prosperity in this country, it is due to ordinary people going about taking care of their own affairs. Some very rich folks have indeed created social wealth (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc.) but many of the CEO class have not. And even Gates and Jobs didn't get where they got on their own. They had lots of help, including lots of help from government.
IMHO, your worship of wealth is out of place. There is no national benefit to cutting taxes for the wealthy once again. Since the last round of tax cuts did not pay for themselves, it's obvious that we're to the left of the inflection point on the Laffer Curve.
Response to dallasdunlap.
As a good Democrat, you consistently classify people by group (rich, middle class, poor, white, black, Hispanic, etc). This is really just Marxist class warfare that has become ingrained in your thinking.
When you say "prosperity…is due to ordinary people going about taking care of their own affairs" you are recognizing that individual freedom and economic liberty creates prosperity. Then you go and mess it all up by attributing Microsoft and Apple successes to government help! No, my friend, government did not contribute to their success. They succeeded in spite of government control and regulation.
You believe that someone who receives compensation for their work is selfish if they want to keep it. Well, only slaves work for others without compensation. But you and your Democrat party want us to be happy little slaves, working away all day so we can hand over to someone else the compensation for our labor. A Democrat believes that a property owner (yes, money is private property) doesn't have a right to keep his property. It is the role of the government to examine your property and decide that you have "too much", and then determine that someone else is better deserving of your property than you! So under your version of good government, Obama, Reid and Pelosi can decide who will be the recipients of their largess, then take the amount of your property that they believe is "excess", and give it to the recipients they deem most worthy.
That stuff about worshiping wealth is just a Marxist guilt trip ploy. If you truly believe in "spreading the wealth", why don't you just pick out someone on the street and hand him or her $1,000, and then continue until you've "spread all your wealth?" Do you have two cars? Well, you probably have "too much", so go ahead and throw the keys to a homeless guy so he have have some of your wealth. Or are you just a selfish worshiper of wealth?
mensmachine – The tax system redistributes income, hence wealth. Currently, the system is distributing income to the higher income levels. The fact that there are different interest groups, and that the wealthier have different interests than the middle class, working class, and poor is not class warfare, it's simply obvious.
You are promiscuous in your use of the terms Marxist, socialist, redistribute wealth, etc. but you are apparently ignorant of their meaning. You mistake Keynesianism for socialism, although Keynes in his time was considered a savior of the capitalist system and was himself a friend of Hayek.
Marx never advocated any fiscal policies.
But here's the deal: The government must be funded. There is, in reality, no appetite for cutting spending. The "conservatives" in Congress signed on to a budget deal that included automatic cuts to the military. They no longer want to cut military spending. Why is that?
It is because, unlike you, they see that government spending is a large portion of the economy and that cutting govt spending means cutting jobs.
The private sector is inextricably linked to and intertwined with the government sector.
That leaves borrowing and taxation. By tradition, having tax revenues that are roughly equal to spending has been considered fiscally responsible. For various reasons, the Republican Party has adopted a sort of pseudoeconomics which holds that permanent large deficits are okay, except when Democrats are in office.
Keynesians would advocate deficit spending to get out of a recession and a balanced budget when the economy is at full employment. But "conservatives" are currently advocating trying to cut the deficit when the economy is not at full employment.
There is a great deal of evidence that the fiscal multiplier for spending is greater than one, but that the tax multiplier is less than one.
So, a tax increase would produce less economic contraction than a spending cut.
As for all your ideological breast clutching: You don't want to pay taxes because you think that you're earned everything you've got all by yourself.
But everything you have is due largely to the fact that you live in a society which is prosperous and which has a government that has provided you with a security and economic opportunity. If you had been born in one of your free market utopias…say Somalia or Afghanistan..you'd be a goat herder.
Really. Gates and Jobs had lots of government help! Just give us a list Dallass of all this government assistance that led to their magnate status.
And your claims about tax cuts not generating greater revenues is just plain ridiculous given the supporting data, which rarely if ever comes with your bizarre claims.
So we should not cut taxes once again for the group that pays most of them because it won't make a difference, so says Dallass the Dunce.
We should just increase government expenditure all the more because it really has done a world of good for the economy these last 4 years.
The spending multiplier is greater than 1, so says Dallass the Dunce. Any proof to offer? No. Dallass' claims are proof. He is an economics divinity.
Government gave wealth to us all, especially in the Soviet Union where the multiplier was 2 or more. Now all those embattled European economies that can't borrow a dime at rates less than 7% and so heavily dependent upon socialist policies are enduring the same prosperity. How wealthy they have all become from big government expenditure. Government should become 80% of the economy and how much greater would their prosperity be. Increase taxes to 90%, and we shall drown in the accumulating wealth.
Because Dallass the Dunce says so. He is so wise. The sage of his parent's basement. Follow Europe! Erect a Soviet State. Follow the North Korean prescription, and advancement and wealth shall be yours.
You and Duranty would have been great friends.
You said: "Keynesians would advocate deficit spending to get out of a recession and a balanced budget when the economy is at full employment. But "conservatives" are currently advocating trying to cut the deficit when the economy is not at full employment."
That would be great except government doesn't restrain itself in the good times and pay down the debt – they feel like we're out of trouble and can pursue even bigger spending sprees. They're addicted to spending and rewarding those who help get them elected with positions, contracts, special waivers, subsidies, stimulus, unearned benefits and other perks all at the taxpayers' expense. We're not safe from the excesses of either party. The interest alone on all this debt will kill us as a nation and all the other things we're bickering about becomes a moot point.
Response to dallasdunlap
You said: "You are promiscuous in your use of the terms Marxist, socialist, redistribute wealth, etc. but you are apparently ignorant of their meaning. "
Are you ashamed of the Marxist philosophical foundation of your Democrat party? Obama isn't. He lies about his Marxism, but his policies show him for what he is. Spreading the wealth (as Obama is pledged to doing) is the objective of the Marxist class struggle.
Obama's paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, fought against capitalism in Kenya and lost his job when he advocated communism. Obama's grandfather, Stanley Dunham, was a communist sympathiser. He and his wife enrolled Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama's mother) in the communist Mercer Island High School where she received her Marxist indoctrination. Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist and publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA.
Now that it is established the Obama is steeped in Marxist dogma, what about his senior advisers and appointees?
1) Obama's Faith Counsel member Jim Wallis is a socialist activist who has championed communist causes and previously labeled the U.S. "the great captor and destroyer of human life."
2) Van Jones, Obama's green czar, was a self-proclaimed communist.
3) Anita Dunn, Obama's White House Communications Director, stated that her favorite philosopher is Chinese Communist dictator Mao Tse-Tung.
4) Obama's "climate czar", Carol Browner, was a member of Socialist International.
5) Obama's " pastor", the Reverend Wright, teaches Liberation Theology, which is Christianity twisted into a Marxist construct.
Are you starting to see a pattern here, dallasdunlap? Yes, your Democrat president is a Marxist, and the Democrats in Congress are complicit in his efforts to "fundamentally transform America" into his Marxist, statist utopia."
wouldn't it be better to cut spending to a level that is less than we take in? and use the difference to pay down the debt? Like I do in my life.
wouldn't a straight flat tax eliminate all the loop holes?
Why as a 40 something am I paying into social security when I know I'll never get anything back?
jdub – There is no reason to assume that you'll never get anything back from Social Security. It is a simple income transfer program. People paying in now pay for current retirees and when you retire, those still working will pay for your retirement. Whether or not SS exists in the future is a political decision.
As for cutting spending overall – What do you want to cut? Personally, I'd be willing to let go of the empire. We don't need to have bases in 180 countries, or to micromanage the affairs of the Mideast. But see what happens when you call for cuts in "defense" spending.
In reality it will take strong economic growth, followed by both tax increases and spending cuts to bring the budget anywhere close to balance. Without economic growth, spending cuts will produce recession. The jury is still out as to whether tax increases would be contractionary.
As for a flat tax: That would be a tax cut for the highest income earners and a tax increase for everybody else.
Hello Dallass,
Take from the workers of today and give to those of yesterday. Its magical. And it will always be run such that revenues will exceed payouts. Because government is so wise when it comes to financial management as we can all see.
Lets cut all those green energy programs, farm subsidies, needless regulation like that at the EPA, Obamacare, most of Medicare and Medicaid save for the very poor, corporate welfare, etc.
So the jury is still out on whether tax increases would cause the economy to contract. I guess Keynes will have to defer to your wisdom on that issue. He was clearly wrong because you know better.
Response to dallasdunlap:
Social Security is not a simple income transfer program; it is a Ponzi scheme. And, like all Ponzi schemes, this one is also collapsing.
You say: "People paying in now pay for current retirees and when you retire, those still working will pay for your retirement." Are you living in the world of the sane? Do you really think Americans will pay a 70% federal tax rate to pay for the retirement of someone else?
Watch this video of "Idiots Who Voted for Obama" and then tell me that these people will "pay for your retirement"
Mr. Ferrara:
As you can probably infer from my screename, I am a proud progressive who will be voting to re-elect President Obama this fall.
While I'd like to comment on every aspect of this article, I'll limit this comment to this one aspect:
I am a committed progressive, but I read information from all sources and come to my own conclusions. Reading information from all sources leads me to believe that the answer to our problems is a system where we have a strong social safety net, financed by taxes on those who have won the lottery of life, a military that is not vastly oversized, and a government that makes smart investments designed to grow the middle-class and the economy.
When reading your articles, you often mention that Reagan's policies began a 25 year growth period that lasted from 1982 to 2007. That claim is amazingly laughable and everytime I read it, that one line overshadows everything else you write and I come away from your article thinking "gosh, conservatives are just so blinded by ideology." Reagan's policies of tax cuts, deregulation, and a strong dollar ushered in a 25 year growth period even though those 25 years included recessions and tax increases (including some by Reagan)? Reagan's policies magically stopped having an impact in 2007, right before the housing bubble burst? It is just beyond ridiculous. I don't know if your goal is to please your audience or to convince people with your columns, but that one line just convinces me more and more that the Democrats and President Obama have it right.
The Republican deregulatory policies cause the booms and the busts and it is time for the Republicans to man up and be consistent with their personal responsibility rhetoric and take responsibility for the busts as well. The Republicans are not entitled to only take credit for the booms and then blame Democrats for the busts and leave Democrats to clean up their messes.
Thank you Peter Ferrara for your recitation of Republican talking points, particularly in your response to ShowMeTheData, but they do not gel with the facts. Expect that your forthcoming revelations of the successes of the George W. Bush era will suffer from similar data misconstruction. We readers understand basic economic theory, no problem there, but in the real world many factors come into play and tax cuts are not an indispensable approach to economic development. Reagan cut some taxes, but raised others, most noticeably in Social Security, the proceeds of which Reagan blew on other government projects, thereby damaging the long-term solvency of this popular social program. Like it or not, the longest and largest economic expansion in US history occurred during the Clinton administration, after taxes were raised. While the Clinton administration cannot take exclusive credit for this growth, tax cuts had no part in it whatsoever.
I hear your republican view, but where did you get your data, where are your links or did you get them from rush the inventor ? this is an op/ed and nothing more you are a paid soothsayer and a romney promoter.
The resolution passed 235-189, with no House Democrats supporting its passage. Just four House Republicans – Reps. Walter Jones, David McKinley, Ron Paul and Denny Rehberg – opposed the bill- NO bipartisan what so ever. you need not lie when you write


text:
Questions on your Keeper or One Year pool? Ask it right here!
Can't decide who to keep in your fantasy pool? Post all keeper pool questions here.
09-08-2012, 11:55
Need advice on your one-year hockey pool? Can't decide who to draft? Post all fantasy related questions/comments regarding one-year pools here.
02-22-2013, 08:50
There are currently 1 users browsing this forum. (0 members & 1 guests)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Start Time: 8pm Friday & Saturday, 2pm SundayAdults: $26 advance, $30 doorSeniors: $20 advance, $25 doorStudents: $20 advance, $25 door
Tickets on sale at Copperfield's in Santa Rosa and Healdsburg, and at Pages in Windsor. Tickets available now online.
Chicago has everything that makes amusical great. A true Broadway institution for many years, it's the universal tale of fame, fortune, and all that jazz. From one show-stopping song & dance after another, it's no wonder Chicago has been honored with 6 Tony Awards, 2 Olivier Awards, a Grammy, and thousands of standing ovations. It's also no surprise that Chicago has wowed audiences all around the world ... and now an exclusive first-time performance run for the North Bay.
Visit the Raven Players website for season info and more.
Dates: 1/27, 1/28, 2/2 (value night), 2/3, 2/4, 2/10, 2/11, 2/12 (matinée), 2/17, 2/18, 2/19 (matinée)
Telephone: 707-584-2000 Fax: 707-585-1363


text:
Sengoku Basara and Stylish Brawling
Who said button-mashing was a bad thing?
Who said button-mashing was a bad thing?
He's brave, he's bold, and now he's on your wii.
Legendary producer The RZA joins DJ Hero 2's lineup.
A hefty RPG that misses a few key details, like acting lessons.
What does it take to bring back one of the most cherished first-person shooters?
Director of Devil May Cry 4, Hiroyuki Kobayashi, on his latest creation.
The Lord of the Rings: Aragorn's Quest gets a cooperative boost.
Here's hoping for more M.I.A. and Dizzee Rascal.
We know who the real star of the band is.
Another alternate reality of Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions.
Eisenbeis investigates a Neon Genesis Evangelion-themed attraction.
If any game deserves to be called trippy...
Oh, the memories in those toilet stalls...
Who knows? Maybe it'll work this time.
Check out some in-game footage of Samus' upcoming adventure.
Tom Clancy's famous series gets an overhaul for the Wii.
Spin and mix your way to the top.
Talking keyboards and White Lion at EA.
Torturing Sims, sharing content, and a bit of Late Night.
With Sonic Colors and Sonic 4 about to hit, could this be the revival of the Hedgehog?


text:
Forgot your password? Click here.Don't have an account? Click here to sign up today!
Welcome to the Training Camp!
Below you will find short informational videos to help you and your students Fuel Up to Play 60. View the archived webinars for additional guidance.
Informational Videos
Learn from Others: Webinar Archive
Become a Program Advisor
Sign up to become the Fuel Up to Play 60 Program Advisor for your school - and receive exclusive Perks!
All Material Copyright © 2013 Fuel Up to Play 60, LLC.


text:
A Real-Time Data Plotting Program
This article describes the implementation of rtp (real-time plotter), a live x,y data plotting utility based on the Qt windowing library. rtp combines live updates with zoom in, auto-scaling, and auto-tracking modes. It is meant to be used where gnuplot is limited, such as the termination of a live data pipeline. However, rtp is small and does not attempt to cover gnuplot's large feature set for producing publishable data plots.
The rtp source code is released under the GPL and is available at metalab.unc.edu/pub/linux/science/visualization/rtp-1.0.0.tar.gz. I developed and tested it under Red Hat 6.0, with Qt 1.44. A README file is included in the package to help you build and use rtp. A screenshot of rtp is shown in Figure 1.
rtp provides real-time updates and basic mouse-driven resolution selection. However, it lacks gnuplot's ability to send formatted, titled plots to a printer. rtp is still a simple piece of software (1200 lines of code) that needs many features added. By describing its principles here, I hope to provide a useful, gentle example of an application based on the Qt library and the X Window System. I also hope to motivate some interested people to do more work on a Linux-based real-time, interactive data visualization system. This could be done either by extending rtp or as a completely new project.
Because all of rtp's data comes from STDIN (standard input), interaction with the user through the X Window System is limited to setting the viewing mode. It allows the user to change the viewing mode even as new data points are being processed. The viewing modes are as follows:
Auto scale: the scaling is adjusted when necessary to include all received data points. This is the default mode and can be selected by pressing a button on the toolbar.
Auto tracking: maintains a fixed scaling, but varies the viewport offset to track the latest points. This mode is selected by pressing a button on the toolbar. The scaling will be fixed at what it was before the toolbar button was pressed.
User-defined fixed: maintains a fixed viewport (both scale and offset), as defined by the user. This mode is selected when the user drags out a viewport in the plot window with the mouse.
I based rtp on the Qt library, because many others in the Linux community are using it (e.g., KDE) and because of its high-quality documentation. An HTML tree (guaranteed to be synchronized with the Qt source because it is automatically generated from the source code and comments) describes all of Qt's classes and functions. Dalheimer also wrote a book on Qt programming that is a very helpful introduction (see Resources).
The Qt library provides a GUI programming environment that is quite complete. When programming in the Qt environment, no reference to the underlying XLib library is necessary. Qt's functionality extends beyond the GUI domain to include container classes that implement several standard data structures.
Each of Qt's functional components is packaged as a C++ class, giving C++ wizards much to ponder and tinker with and those of us who like to write operational code a good tool set. For myself, having about a year of experience writing production C code with only a college course in C++, it was fairly easy to learn the Qt C++ framework.
The Qt library makes integration of independently developed classes easier through its C++ extensions: "signals" and "slots". A signal is a class member function that is undefined at compile time. A slot is a member function that is specially designated for connection to a signal at runtime. For example, a GUI button class could have a Push signal. At runtime, a plot window's slot Render could be connected to the button's Push. From then on, code that calls the button's Push method effectively calls the plot window's Render method.
Code based on the signals and slots mechanism is easier to read and maintain than that dealing with runtime function-pointer tables. (I'd bet the implementation uses a function pointer or two.) Qt also takes care of annoyances such as stubbing non-connected signals to an empty function, so you don't get a segmentation fault from a null pointer.
The drawback of signals and slots is that they are non-standard C++ extensions using new syntax, so Qt code with signals and slots must be passed through a preprocessor provided with the Qt library before it can be compiled. Dalheimer's book explains signals and slots in sufficient detail for you to start using them.
bad link
refers to rtp 1.0.0. Link is broken, version is 1.0.1
Linux has become a key foundation for supporting today's rapidly growing IT environments. Linux is being used to deploy business applications and databases, trading on its reputation as a low-cost operating environment. For many IT organizations, Linux is a mainstay for deploying Web servers and has evolved from handling basic file, print, and utility workloads to running mission-critical applications and databases, physically, virtually, and in the cloud. As Linux grows in importance in terms of value to the business, managing Linux environments to high standards of service quality — availability, security, and performance — becomes an essential requirement for business success.
Sponsored by Red Hat
If you already use virtualized infrastructure, you are well on your way to leveraging the power of the cloud. Virtualization offers the promise of limitless resources, but how do you manage that scalability when your DevOps team doesn't scale? In today's hypercompetitive markets, fast results can make a difference between leading the pack vs. obsolescence. Organizations need more benefits from cloud computing than just raw resources. They need agility, flexibility, convenience, ROI, and control.
Stackato private Platform-as-a-Service technology from ActiveState extends your private cloud infrastructure by creating a private PaaS to provide on-demand availability, flexibility, control, and ultimately, faster time-to-market for your enterprise.
Sponsored by ActiveState
Trending Topics
|August 2014 Issue of Linux Journal: Programming
|Aug 01, 2014
|August 2014 Video Preview
|Aug 01, 2014
|Open-Source Space
|Jul 31, 2014
|Silicon Mechanics Gives Back
|Jul 30, 2014
|Reglue: Opening Up the World to Deserving Kids, One Linux Computer at a Time
|Jul 29, 2014
|diff -u: What's New in Kernel Development
|Jul 23, 2014
- August 2014 Issue of Linux Journal: Programming
- Open-Source Space
- Numerical Python
- New Storage Solution is Music to the Ears of Fast-Growing Digital Music Company
- Reglue: Opening Up the World to Deserving Kids, One Linux Computer at a Time
- Silicon Mechanics Gives Back
- Linux Systems Administrator
- Senior Perl Developer
- Technical Support Rep
- UX Designer


text:
To qualify for recognition, teams had to have achieved a cumulative team GPA of 3.0 or above for the 2011-2012 academic year. Sixteen of the teams that participated in the 2012 NCAA Championship were named Academic Squads.
The Pride was one of 61 teams from across the nation to earn the honor. Including Springfield, the New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference (NEWMAC) had five teams recognized, including MIT, Mount Holyoke, Wheaton, and Wellesley.


text:
Barbie® Color Chalk Hair Doll
Item #: Y7450
Was: $22.99Now: $15.99
Enjoy free shipping on your order of $35+!More Promotion Details
See what happens when you play with color! Barbie comes to you, her favorite hair stylist, for the latest looks. You've got the trendiest idea – bold color streaks, using special chalk-pod applicators. Streak and style her hair for a gorgeous, show-stopping look. It washes out with soap and water – so easy!
More Details
- Details
Play With Color
Styling a Barbie doll's hair? Always fun. Color streaks in your hair? Trendy and fun. Use one color or combine two to get a fabulous customized result. It's the Barbie Color Chalk Hair Doll, with hair you can color, wash out, and color all over again, as many times as you want!
Easy Application
Barbie Color Chalk Hair Doll comes with three "chalk pods." These are the applicators for the hair color streaks, and they simply snap on the section of hair that you want to color. Gently press on the soft bottom of the chalk pod to secure it, and slide the pod down the length of hair to reveal bright, bold color streaks.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat
The three combined chalk pods contains enough color for 100 applications or more, so you can try all kinds of new styles and hair-color combinations. When you want to restore Barbie doll's hair to its natural blonde, just wash the color chalk streaks out with regular soap and water. When her hair dries, it'll be ready for a new style!
What's in the Box?
Barbie Color Chalk Hair Doll comes with a Barbie doll and fashion, hair styling accessories, and three chalk pods in blue, pink, and purple.
- Pink, blue, and purple chalk pod colors
- The three pods combined can be used for 100 applications or more
- Click pod on the section of hair to color; slide pod down the hair to apply
- Chalk washes out with regular soap and water
- Includes doll and fashion, 3 chalk pods, and styling accessories
Battery Required: No | Batteries Included: No
Assembly Required: No
Warranty: Yes
Age Grade: 5 & Up
Country of Origin: CN


text:
Lockport Union-Sun & Journal
Lockport Union-Sun & Journal — Do you know who will make health care decisions for you if you can't?
Most don't, which is why Niagara Hospice is hosting an advance care planning clinic Thursday to help educate people on the importance of choosing a proxy.
A health care proxy is a person who is authorized to act on behalf of someone if they can't do it themselves. The proxy plays an important role in ensuring people's wishes are followed.
Patricia M. Degan, director of marketing and public relations for The Hospice and Palliative Care Group in Niagara County, said that a proxy isn't something that's limited to the elderly.
"Some people think it's something you only need when you are older in age," she said. "But it's a good idea if you're over 18 to have one. You could have a tragic accident and can't make decisions for yourself."
The HomeCare Partners, Niagara Hospice, Liberty Home Care and Niagara Hospice Alliance will hold an hour-long clinic at 3 p.m. Thursday at the Niagara Hospice Administrative Building, 4675 Sunset Drive, Lockport.
The Advance Care Planning program will help participants ensure their health care wishes are followed.
Degan said the group generally holds these events twice a year: in October for National Health Care Proxy Awareness Month and in April for National Health Care Decisions Day.
According to Degan, it's important to start proxy conversations with family so that relatives understand a person's end-of-life health care wishes.
"Do you want to be hooked up to tubes, oxygen and artificial nutrition and hydration?" Degan asked as examples. "Or do you want conditions set for if there's no hope for recovery and you don't want that kind of treatment?"
Cheryl Ferguson, a medical social worker for Niagara Hospice, will explain health care proxies, living wills, do not resuscitate orders and medical orders for life sustaining treatment.
Degan said Ferguson is "well versed" with the ins and outs of designating a health care proxy.
"By learning more about advance directives, our community can have thoughtful conversations about their health care decisions and complete reliable advance directives to make their wishes known," Ferguson said. "Fewer families and health care providers will have to struggle with making difficult health care decisions in the absence of guidance from the patient."
Health care providers and facilities will be better equipped to address advance health care planning issues before a crisis and be better able to honor patient wishes when the time comes to do so, Ferguson added.
Degan said health care proxies have become more popular in recent years as people have become more aware of the service.
"It's really a gift that you can give your family so that they don't have to make those difficult decisions," Degan said. "They know what you talked to them about and you're able to make those decisions yourself. Your family is speaking for you."
The program is free and open to the public. Pre-registration is required by leaving a message at 280-0742 by Wednesday. Free forms and refreshments will be available.
For more information visit the Events page at NiagaraHospice.org or call Niagara Hospice at


text:
OTTUMWA - An Ottumwa man was arrested Friday and charged with delivery of meth.
At approximately noon Friday, officers from the Ottumwa Police Department, Iowa Department of Public Safety Division of Narcotics Enforcement, US Drug Enforcement Administration and the Southeast Iowa Inter-Agency Drug Task Force arrested Lening Lizama, 23, of 17167 Bluegrass Road, Ottumwa.
Lizama was arrested in the 200 block of North Sheridan Avenue and charged with three counts of delivery of a less than five grams of meth, a Class "C" Felony, and delivery of more than five grams of meth, a Class "B" Felony.
Officers then conducted a consent search of his home on Bluegrass Road. As a result of the search, officers located items consistent with the distribution of controlled substances.


text:
Staff Report
Fugitive arrested at motel near Corbin
Laurel and Whitley county sheriff's officers on Friday located Gregory Monroe, 50, of Pine Knot, at a motel near Corbin.
The Whitley County Sheriff's office got information that the fugitive was near the motel located near the Laurel County line.
They charged Monroe with being a fugitive from Clermont County, Ohio, for non-support of six dependents.
He was taken to the Laurel County Corrections Center and will be extradited to Ohio.
Police: Drunken teen nearly strikes two officers
While directing traffic on KY 192, east of London during the Red, White & Boom celebration Saturday night London Police officers arrested three people.
The 17-year-old driver approached the officers and refused to stop for their signals. The car stopped before nearly striking two officers.
The driver was arrested for driving under the influence and for having a fraudulent driver's license.
The driver told the officers that he used his fraudulent license to get vodka at the Manchester Liquor Mart.
Passenger Kellie R. Smith, the driver's mother became belligerent with officers and refused to cooperate with them.
She and a second passenger, Marc Miller, were also arrested, the police office reported.
Woman wanted in Florida arrested
On Saturday at about 9 p.m., Kentucky State Police Vehicle Enforcement Officer Jerry Jones was investigating at a home on Earl Howard Road in Laurel County regarding a vehicle that had evaded police earlier that day.
During the investigation, Jones located an unrelated woman, 38-year-old Marita Hutchinson of St. Petersburg, Fla., who was wanted for dealing in stolen property by Pinellas County, Fla.
She was arrested and taken to the Laurel County Corrections Center.
Keavy man arrested
Laurel County Detective Jason Back arrested Carl Henderson, 27, of Keavy.
He was charged with a Laurel County bench warrant for flagrant non support of more than $9,800.
He was arrested about 12 miles south of London and taken to the Laurel County Corrections Center.
Police Roundup - July 3, 2012
- Arrests/Indictments
Man indicted for sexual abuse
A London man has been indicted for an alleged eight years of sexual abuse of a child under 12 years old.
Police Roundup - Jan. 29, 2013
According to Laurel County Sheriff John Root, the department has stepped up its enforcement along U.S. 25 between Corbin and London.
Police Roundup - Jan. 7, 2013
A London man was arrested Saturday after deputies found him in a hotel room with a juvenile, drug paraphernalia and painkillers, according to Laurel County Sheriff John Root.
Police Roundup - December 7, 2012
A London man was arrested Wednesday for driving under the influence after he pulled his truck into a private drive and passed out with the engine running, according to Laurel County Sheriff John Root.
Woman pleads guilty in baby trade
A woman charged with trading her newborn baby for a used pickup truck pleaded guilty in Laurel County Circuit Court Tuesday, according to a court official.
Police Roundup - December 5, 2012
Two London women were arrested Tuesday after it was learned they used their positions at a local dentist's office to obtain prescriptions illegally, according to Laurel County Sheriff John Root.
Corbin man jailed for robbery
An early morning robbery landed a Corbin man in jail on multiple charges Saturday.
Five face federal drug charges
Five people face federal charges after an ongoing federal investigation into oxycodone distribution in this area.
Man indicted for murder of girlfriend
A man charged in the murder of his 25-year-old girlfriend has been indicted by a Laurel County Circuit Court Grand Jury, court documents indicate.
Police Roundup - Nov. 20, 2012
Johnny D. Brown, 39, of Laurel County faces charges of burglary, fleeing and evading, theft of a firearm, theft under $500 and criminal mischief.
- More Arrests/Indictments Headlines


text:
Dual density composite foam construction offers low-profile protection and superior comfort.
**PLEASE NOTE: No returns or exchanges on groin protectors for hygienic reasons**
(based on 2 reviews)
Ratings Distribution
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Stars
Reviewed by 2 customers
Sort by
Displaying reviews 1-2
Back to top
(4 of 4 customers found this review helpful)
Not worth it
By Diane
from Maryland
About Me Avid Athlete
Best Uses
Comments about Shock Doctor Women's Pelvic Protector:
I train hard and this cup does not provide enough support. I was dissappointed. The size is decent and it's comfortable until you get kicked. We need a cup just like the man's but with less curve or bulk. I currently use the male Banana Cup product with the male jock strap. It's not comfortable, but very effective. I can put the strap on before I leave the house and just slip the cup in when needed. The compression shorts don't seem to hold it in place when I'm doing forms and sets or ground fighting.
Bottom Line No, I would not recommend this to a friend
Was this review helpful? Yes / No
- You may also flag this review
Comment on this review
(1 of 1 customers found this review helpful)
By Ozzie
from Australia
About Me Competitive Athlete
See all my reviews
Highly recommend this product as an alternative to the bulky groin protectors. Inserted into the power slider shorts, you do not even notice it is there, and you can maintain 100% movement.
Bottom Line Yes, I would recommend this to a friend
Do you have questions about this product?
get answers from real customers and in-house experts with AnswerBox.
Know the answer? Answer this question
2 answers
Do you have a question about this product?
Stay informed on the latest products and sales!
Sign up for our newsletter now!


text:
MV Salsa classes & clubToday
Regular Salsa club night every Wednesday
Diva Dance Fitness ClassToday
A dance fitness class with a diva-ish edge!
Batteries not IncludedToday
Batteries not Included 21 June – 5 October Northampton Museum & Art Gallery
Much Ado About Nothing by William ShakespeareToday
Performed by the Masque Theatre troupe. 24 July – 2 August (no performance on 27 July). Doors open at 7pm for 7.30pm.
Summer Holiday WorkshopsToday
Summer Holidays workshops from 29 July to 28 August.
WW1 Centenary tandem charity skydiveToday
Support a military charity and join The Queen Alexandra Hospital Home's world record charity skydive attempt.
A shoemaker goes to warToday
2 August - 9 November Northampton Museum & Art Gallery
NNestival - Northampton FestivalToday
NNestival - For Northants, By Northants!
Classic Car and Bike Show Northampton03/08/2014
The Classic Car and Bike Show Returns for another year - Held at Billing Aquadrome Northampton
Twitter Networking!07/08/2014
FREE Twitter Networking with #NORTHANTSHOUR


text:
Musical Animal Puppets
Simply move the mouth of the Musical Duck or Frog hand puppet to hear them quack or ribbit one of three traditional nursery rhymes. The rhythm of the song is controlled by how quickly you move its mouth. Children will delight in your ability to make the duck and frog hand puppets sing their favorite nursery rhymes. Each puppet sings Old MacDonald, Frere Jacques, and London Bridge is Falling... More at Vat19.com.
Gift Gurus Also Recommend
They Might Also Like
Other Similar Products
Recently Viewed Gifts
You don't have any recently viewed gifts


text:
Old school, new life
- Last Updated on 07:40 AM 09/30/13
- BY Doug Ford
What was once a high school and elementary school teaching life lessons to scores of students will continue to create history in another way after a celebration of the Washington-Coleman Community Center grand opening on Saturday.
The building that once housed Booker T. Washington High School and Washington-Coleman Elementary School and currently houses pre-K classes, underwent a $2.2 million facelift.
The community center was designed to provide a safe environment for residents to engage in leisure activities such as arts and crafts as well as senior citizen activity groups and a classroom and activity center to enhance the effectiveness of the Mentor-Role Model Program.
With the history surrounding the school building in mind, every effort was made to preserve and celebrate that history, with exhibits celebrating the history of Booker T. Washington High School, M.H. Coleman Grammar School, Washington-Coleman Elementary School and the Civil Rights in Education Trail on-site.
A fully-equipped computer lab at the center to be available to the general public also is planned at the community center.
Odell Thompson, the only remaining member of the Booker T. Washington High School Class of 1942, recalled a small school with only two classrooms separated by sliding doors.
Out of a class of 35, six graduated, three boys and three girls, the majority of the boys being called into service during World War II, she recalled.
"The only athletes we had were basketball, but they were champions," said Thompson.
"This is America, the vision that has gone into this place," Thompson said in referring to the community center.
South Boston Mayor Ed Owens, himself a student at Washington-Coleman Elementary School, said more important than any subject taught were the life lessons his teachers conveyed to their students, including humility before God, love and respect.
"I hope this will be a source of pride in our community," said Owens, who referred to the planning and construction of the community center as a team effort.
Owens referred to Town Manager Ted Daniel as the "MVP" of the team.
"Without his hard work and perseverance, this project would not have happened," Owens pointed out, pointing to the countless times Daniel had visited the construction site.
"This is a community center, and community is what it's all about," Daniel remarked.
"In the future, this could be a place to go to, and to me the future is a place you create, whether a personal future or community future."
The office for the Mentor-Role Model program located in the Community Center will serve as an anchor for the area, according to David Martin, board president for the group.
"It means a lot to have this facility," said Martin, "We've never had a home like this. The Mentor-Role Model Program instills hope, and I know it's going to have a great future."
Construction of the Community Center marked the completion of Phase II of the entire project.
Phase I construction included the renovation and upgrade of the pre-K section of the facility with secure fencing and separate off-street parking.
Phase II included the renovation of the 1930-era and historic section of the old school into a year-round community center facility for exclusive use by the town's parks and recreation department.
Phase III, which has not yet been funded, is the construction of a new, modern gymnasium to accommodate the overload of indoor recreation demand currently experienced at the South Boston Recreation Center on Broad Street.


text:
Pocket Playhouse
CHRISTMAS OFFER: Order before December 19th and receive FREE set of Christmas Doors.
Pocket Playhouse is Handmade in Australia!
Pocket Playhouse stimulates your child's imagination whilst reinforcing colour and shape recognition and hand eye co-ordination.
Pocket Playhouse is lightweight, (less than 1kg), is adjustable to fit most standard tables up to 1.2 meters wide to 2 meters long. Extenders are available for longer tables.
Custom orders can be placed if your table does not fit into these measurements.
A storage pocket is integrated in the design making it easy to store and transport.
A great idea for grandparents and an ideal solution for keeping children happy on rainy days during holidays.
A variety of themed "doors", which come with 20 brightly coloured attachments plus a small fabric chalkboard, are available to choose from, catering for children of both genders across a range of ages.
Choose one as part of your initial purchase. Add additional doors as your family grows and/or their interests change.
All components of Pocket Playhouse may be machine washed in cold water.
Click "Visit Website" for more information.
Contact: 0414 422 662