Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Fwd: on your own

From: larry.r.trout

'I agree with David Frum that the most toxic part of the speech is Barack Obama talking about the sources of success:


I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.


Really? The president is always struck by people who take credit for their own successes? Obviously, every successful outcome in life -- and every failed one -- arises from a combination of internal and external factors. But the president's tone when he said this, amused by the very idea of people taking credit for their achievements, was off-putting.


Frum mostly talks about why this statement irks rich people, but I believe it resonates badly with people at all income levels. Lots of people -- most, I hope -- are proud of something they've achieved in their lives and feel like that achievement owes much to their own hard work and talents. You don't have to make over $250,000 a year to be annoyed when the president mocks people for taking credit for their achievements.


And it's an especially jarring statement because of what it's used to justify -- higher taxes, with the implication being that they are called for because people do not deserve their own pre-tax wealth. People are rightly unnerved by an argument that amounts to "we can tax you because you didn't deserve this anyway." Faced with such an argument, defending your own contribution to your success isn't just a point of pride -- it's an argument you must make to defend the principle that you are entitled to your own private property.'




FW: Happy Birthday

Why Libertarianism Is Wrong


Monday, July 30, 2012

Paul Ryan’s Influence on the G.O.P. : The New Yorker


on your own

From: larry.r.trout

'Is Liz Warren so far left that even Barack Obama needs to distance himself from her?


Last week saw the president backing away from his anti-free market tirade that, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that."


The president now claims that his words were taken out of context. But it is clear from the entirety of the speech that Obama's finger-wagging lecture was deliberately cribbed from Warren's earlier "nobody got rich on his own" rant.


Warren's remarks, delivered in 2011, were a deeply ideological defense of redistributive economics.


"You built a factory out there? Good for you," Warren said dismissively. "But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate."


And so, the Harvard professor concluded, those who own businesses owe it to "the rest of us" to pay up. "Part of the underlying social contract," Warren said, "is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward."


Although conservatives attacked Warren's remarks as anti-capitalist, many liberals embraced the feisty law professor's call to redistribute wealth. Including, it seems, the president.


It is not surprising that Warren's ideological clarion call resonated with Obama.


Her words reinforced the anti-business predisposition of a president who, as a young man, told his mother that he regarded his entry-level corporate job as "working for the enemy."


Her words echoed his world-view that government is the engine of economic growth and that the private sector exists for the purpose of maintaining a robust public sector.


And her words backed up his call for higher taxes and his decision to spend billions on government projects and so-called shovel-ready jobs.


Obama's remarks were not — as Jon Stewart has claimed — "a slight grammatical misstep." On the contrary, they were a well-thought out tip of the hat to Warren and her Ivy League notions that nobody succeeds without government and, therefore, successful people need to "give back" more to the government than they are already giving.


The president may have hoped that, combined with his desperate attacks on Bain Capital, his Warren-esque comments would lend intellectual coherence to his policy agenda and generate class resentment toward his wealthier opponent.


But Obama, the Harvard Law grad, forgot that the rest of the country isn't Cambridge. And while Massachusetts academics might appreciate this rhetoric, middle-America does not.


In fact, Obama may have just awoken a sleeping giant. From coast to coast, contractors, shopkeepers, farmers and restaurant owners — many of them swing voters — now realize that when Obama speaks disparagingly about the "rich," he is talking not just about venture capitalists. He is talking about them.'




Friday, July 27, 2012

Re: GDP. Seven reasons why tax increases are the wrong approach.

On Friday, July 27, 2012, wrote:

So do you believe we should in December raise taxes on a) no one b) the rich c) everyone ?


From: Trout, Larry R


'GDP: U.S. economic growth slowed to 1.5% in last 3 months


American consumers cut back sharply on spending in recent months, slowing the nation's already sluggish rate of economic growth.


The economy grew at an annual rate of 1.5 percent from April through June, the Commerce Department reported Friday, a pace that confirmed fears that the economy continues to sputter.


A Growth rate below 2 percent isn't enough to lower the unemployment rate, which was 8.2 percent last month. And few analysts expect the economy to gain momentum in the second half of the year, as concern about debt problems in Europe and the fiscal cliff—a series of tax increases and spending cuts due to take effect in January unless policy makers find an alternative—dampen confidence.


The estimated rate of economic growth in the second quarter marked the weakest quarterly GDP growth since last fall and promises to sharpen the scrutiny on the President Obama's fiscal policies.'




Best wishes,

John Coffey


Re: on your own

The real issue that he disregards is what is an ideal level of taxation?  He mentality is to soak the rich.   Although he claims that he is patterning this after Bill Clinton, I have read that his proposals instead bring us to European levels of taxation. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:48 AM, John Coffey wrote:

What is sad is that he disregards that the successful are already paying for infrastructure at a disproportionate rate.     When he says "somebody invested..." then he is implying that somebody else paid for it because he specifically says that you didn't.  He is saying that the wealthy get a free ride, which is a big fat lie. 

On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:39 AM, John Coffey wrote:

I don't know if you listened to the speech. I did.  Although you might be correct, he really didn't make it clear.  There was enough of a substantial  pause after the  bridges part to cause confusion over his meaning.  Can you you really say that you know what he meant?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:25 AM, jeff.n.spiegel wrote:

Exactly right.  I don't see the Conservative integrity in misreading the words of an opponent's speech.   Seems like the Republicans are Democrat's today, pathetic.


From: Wendel, David J


If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business — you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.'


If you listen to the speech instead of reading it, you know that the "that" he was talking about was the stuff in red.


David Wendel

From: Trout, Larry R


'There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn't — look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.


If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business — you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.'




Sunday, July 22, 2012

Fwd: The Banks

One should ask why it's anyone's business how much the banks make?  They are like any other business who is responsible to their shareholders.  It might also mean an increased demand for banking or that non-banking profits are way down.    You might as well question why Apple is so profitable. 

The obvious answer might be that they are government subsidized, in which case, if they are so profitable, why do they need a handout?

From: al grotz 

This is exactly what's wrong with our system.
This quote is an excert from an article in the Deseret News online today:
(The Deseret News is one of the two major newspapers in Salt Lake City.)
Finally, the issues of inequality seem to be exacerbated by excessively high returns to the financial sector. "From 1973 to 1985," writes Simon Johnson, "the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits." During the first decade of the 21st century, however, Johnson notes how the financial sector's portion of profits reached 41 percent.
Thomas Jefferson warned us what would happen if the banking system was allowed to become what it is today.
They have reached the point where they control everything including our politicians... to their own end.
They break the rules, they take risks, and when the risks go bad, they get bail outs (i.e. we the common taxpayers
pay for the loss so that they can still make their profit.)
More and more the banks are controlling us to their own end.

The $7 trillion fiscal cliff - Apr. 30, 2012


Thursday, July 19, 2012

You didn't build that

From: larry.r.trout@

'The video features Jack Gilchrist, owner of Gilchrist Metal Fabricating Company, and shows him getting ready for work at dawn while Obama's words play in the background.


"If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. ... I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart," the president says, as the ad shows Gilchrist saying goodbye to his family and heading off to work. "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."


The ad then cuts to an incredulous Gilchrist, who asks: "My father's hands didn't build this company? My hands didn't build this company? My son's hands aren't building this company? Did somebody else take out the loan on my father's house to finance the equipment? Did somebody else make payroll every week or figure out where it's coming from?


"President Obama, you're killing us out here. Through hard work and a little bit of luck, we built this business. Why are you demonizing us for it? We are the solution, not the problem."'




Wednesday, July 18, 2012

RE: Be Proud To Be White

I find this questionable.  I think that it steps over the line. 


I don't like labels.  Labels only divide us.  I refer you to a John Wayne record released around 40 years ago where he said that we should get rid of all the hyphens and just call ourselves Americans.   ("That's good enough for me."-JW)   I am sure that it is on youtube.

Best wishes,

John Coffey


From: Hebden, Daniel


Here's the message I was talking about.


Dan H.



Subject: Be Proud To Be White


The following may sound a little harsh, but if think about it - it is mostly true.....


Be Proud To Be White.
I have been wondering about why Whites are
Racists, and no other race is...

Michael Richards makes his point... And whether we
Like it or not, he is telling the truth.

Michael Richards, better known as Kramer from TVs
Seinfeld, does make a good point.

This was his defense speech in court after making
Racial comments in his comedy act.

He makes some very interesting points...

Someone finally said it. How many are actually
Paying attention to this?

There are African Americans, Mexican Americans,
Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.

And then there are just Americans. You pass me on
The street and sneer in my direction.

You call me 'White boy', 'Cracker', 'Honkey',
'Whitey', 'Caveman'... And that's OK...

But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head,
Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink
... You call me a racist.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence
Against you...  So why are the ghettos the most
Dangerous places to live?  You have the United
Negro College Fund.

You have Martin Luther King Day.

You have Black History Month.

You have Cesar Chavez Day.

You have Yom Hashoah.

You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.

You have the NAACP.

You have BET...

If we had WET (White Entertainment Television),
We'd be racists.

If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us

If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.

If we had any organization for only whites to
'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black
Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the
Plain Chamber of Commerce.

Wonder who pays for that??

A white woman could not be in the Miss Black
American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss
America pageant.

If we had a college fund that only gave white
Students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.

There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges
In the US .. Yet if there were 'White colleges',
That would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you
Were marching for your race and rights.  If we
Marched for our race and rights, you would call us
Racists.  You are proud to be black, brown, yellow
And orange, and you're not afraid to announce it.

But when we announce our white pride, you call us

You rob us, car jack us, and shoot at us.

But, when a white police officer shoots a black
Gang member or beats up a black drug dealer
Running from the law and posing a threat to
Society, you call him a racist.

I am proud...... But you call me a racist.

Why is it that only whites can be racists??  There
Is nothing improper about this email.  Let's see
Which of you are proud enough to send it on.  I
Sadly don't think many will.

That's why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS in this

We won't stand up for ourselves!


It's not a crime YET... But getting very close!

It is estimated that ONLY 5% of those reaching
This point in this email, will pass it on.


Re: This Is Awesome!!!

This is great. 

Mardawna Grover wrote:

Scroll down...LOVE IT!  Seen it before but always worth the read!
Mardawna Grover.

the title says it all

  Subject: Fw: This Is Awesome!!!
With all of the hate and prejudice flying around I found this to be pretty accurate.
Written by an Australian Dentist   

To Kill an American
You probably missed this in the rush of news, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper, an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American. 

So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let everyone know what an American is . So they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate!!!!)  

'An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish , Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan.

An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.

An American is Christian , or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.

An American is also free to believe in no religion.. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God. 

An American lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world. 
 The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence , which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.

An American is generous.. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return.

When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country!

As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan ...
The national symbol of America , The Statue of Liberty , welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built America 

Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11 , 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.
 So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo , and Stalin , and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world.. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself . Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

Please keep this going!
Pass this around the World .
Then pass it around again.  It says it all, for all of us. 
Please do not just delete. 
Pass it on first. 

Fwd: Let it all end

What I really want is to indefinitely  freeze total government spending in absolute dollars or reduce government spending in inflation adjusted dollars.  Tax issues are secondary.  I would like to see a $ 3.5 T cap. 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:   Larry 

I am starting to think we need to let everything end in 2012…


They say if we let all current legislation end, the current 3% GDP growth will be 0% this year.


Let's cut non-entitlement domestic spending by 8%

Let's cut the military by 10%.

Let's let all income tax cuts expire.

Let's let the AMT fix go away.

Let's let  the Capital gains rate cut expire.

Let's let the Payroll tax cut expire.

Let's let the Medicare payment cut take effect.

Let's let unemployment extensions go away.

Let's let the death tax come back.

Let's let the marriage penalty come back.

Let's let all temporary tax breaks for business expire.


This will reduce our 1 trillion dollar  deficit by 500 billion dollars next year.

Then we reach our debt ceiling early next year.

And can figure how to cut spending and raise taxes to reduce the deficit by another 500 billion dollars.







Best wishes,

John Coffey


Fwd: Senkaku Islands

'The United States is closely monitoring the political and diplomatic struggle over the Pinnacle Islands. Historically, US involvement in the area is extensive. The islands were occupied by the United States from the end of World War II until 1972, when they were "returned" to Japanese control. Both China and Taiwan dismissed this transfer of authority as a violation of Chinese sovereignty.


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stopped in Japan on her way to the recent ASEAN meeting in Cambodia. She inquired about Japanese plans to "nationalize" the islands, with apparent concern for Sino-Japanese relations. She then met with the Chinese foreign minister at the sidelines of the ASEAN summit, with Clinton stressing that the US won't "take sides in disputes about territorial or maritime boundaries". [5]


This is a pointed change in tone from earlier that week, when a State Department official said that the US would be required to come to Japan's aid in case of attack by a third party on the disputed Islands: "The Senkakus would fall within the scope of Article 5 of the 1960 US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security because the Senkaku Islands have been under the administrative control of the government of Japan since they were returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972," said the unnamed official. [5]


Article Five of the 1960 US-Japan Treaty is essentially a mutual-defense clause. It is a cornerstone of US Asia policy, cementing the alliance between the US and Japan. However, its application in case of skirmishes over the Pinnacle Islands could lead to disastrous consequences.


The US neither wants to appear as an ineffective ally, nor to risk World War III over a small maritime clash. Clinton's efforts to reach out to the Japanese and Chinese governments, as well as her claims that the US does not favor one territorial claimant over another, are part of a concerted effort to disuse a potential powder keg.'




Best wishes,

John Coffey


Thursday, July 12, 2012

Fwd: Taliban

From: larry.r.trout

'One of the Taliban's most senior commanders has admitted the insurgents cannot win the war in Afghanistan and that capturing Kabul is "a very distant prospect", obliging them to seek a settlement with other political forces in the country.


In a startlingly frank interview in Thursday's New Statesman, the commander – described as a Taliban veteran, a confidant of the leadership, and a former Guantánamo inmate – also uses the strongest language yet from a senior figure to distance the Afghan rebels from al-Qaida.


"At least 70% of the Taliban are angry at al-Qaida. Our people consider al-Qaida to be a plague that was sent down to us by the heavens," the commander says. "To tell the truth, I was relieved at the death of Osama [bin Laden]. Through his policies, he destroyed Afghanistan. If he really believed in jihad he should have gone to Saudi Arabia and done jihad there, rather than wrecking our country…



As a result, he says that the Taliban has had to shelve its dream of re-establishing the Islamic emirate it set up when it was in power from 1996 to 2001. "Any side involved in a conflict like this has decided to fight for power. If they fall short of achieving national power, they have to settle for functioning as an organized party within the country," he admits."'




'The fugitive leader of the Taliban, who is one of the most wanted men in the world, could hold power if enough people voted for him, the Afghan president said.


His comments were the latest in a series of overtures from Mr Karzai to the insurgent movement which is at war with his government and its Nato backers.


He told a news conference: "I repeat my call on all Afghans, those who aren't the puppets of others and have (only) issues with us at home – they're welcome for any talks," the AFP news agency reported.


"Mullah Mohammad Omar can come inside Afghanistan anywhere he wants to. He can open political office for himself but he should leave the gun.


"He along with his friends can come and create his political party, do politics, become a candidate himself for the elections. If people voted for him, good for him, he can take the leadership in his hand." Mr Karzai routinely refers to the Taliban as his brothers and calls on them to join talks and renounce violence.'





Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Fwd: It's the spending stupid

From: larry.r.trout

'Last year, Congress agreed to $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts, unless politicians find other things to cut. They didn't, of course. So now, with so-called sequestration looming in January, panic has set in. Even the new "fiscally responsible" Republicans vote against cutting Energy Department handouts to companies like Solyndra and subsidies to sugar producers. Many claim that any cut in military spending will weaken America and increase unemployment.


It's another demonstration of the politicians' addiction to spending -- and how we are complicit. "One more infrastructure bill" or "this jobs plan" will jumpstart the economy, and then we'll kick our spending addiction once and for all.


But we don't stop.


For most of American history, government was tiny. But since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and the promise that government would cure poverty, spending has gone up nonstop. This is not sustainable.


Progressives say: If you're so worried about the deficit, raise taxes! But it's a fantasy to imagine that taxing the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That's only a third of this year's deficit.


It's the spending, stupid.


Even if you could balance the budget by taxing the rich, it wouldn't be right. Progressives say it's wrong for the rich to be "given" more money. But money earned belongs to those who earn it, not to government. Lower taxes are not a handout.'




Monday, July 9, 2012

Fwd: Liberal Logic 101

From: "larry.r.trout









"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"








Why Economic Policy is Paralyzed | RealClearPolitics


Thursday, July 5, 2012

Toure: Government Must Demand People Accept Change They're Not Ready For


The Truth. It Hurts.












Romney's VP Short List: It May Be Down to Four