Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (781445)	4/24/2014 6:46:50 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By joseffy Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577124

clinton benefited from Reagan's policies. with 20% interest rates even if you had a job with Carter you were still fukked. no one could buy a house with those rates. Kennedy and LBJ benefited from Ike's policies and JFK TAX CUTS if it wasn't for republicans (and tax cuts) the dems would have failed. look at Obama, socialism doesn't work

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (781445)	4/24/2014 6:48:58 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Recommended By Taro tonto Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577124

Ronald Reagan's executive order on grazing fees is not what you think 8 libertyunyielding “I happen to be one who cheers and supports the Sagebrush Rebellion. Count me in as a rebel.” – Ronald Reagan, 1980 The Sagebrush Rebellion, of which Cliven Bundy was a part, was a battle for federal land to be returned to the states. This battle has been fought by western states for well over a century, as explained remarkably in Robert H. Nelson’s work for the CATO institute. In the end, the federal government made concessions to hush up the dissenters, who have a valid constitutional argument (in fact, it is more than valid). Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12548 was by no means the first time a grazing fee was imposed on ranchers. In fact, ranchers had been paying fees since the advent of the Forest Service. Ronald Reagan was not imposing grazing fees on ranchers. He was ensuring that the existing fees would not be raised. The environmentalists lamented the move, saying that it was an unfair subsidy to ranchers and the low grazing fees would result in livestock devouring the West. In 1986, the New York Times reported, “President Reagan signed an executive order Friday retaining the hotly debated low fees for ranchers whose cattle graze on Federal lands in the West.” Charles Callison, director of the Public Lands Institute said that the Executive Order was an ”outrage.” He called the fee ”an unfair subsidy to a tiny minority of livestock operators in the West.” Marchant Wentworth, conservation associate of the Izaak Walton League of America, was quoted as saying, ”We are disappointed at this shallow attempt to pursue Western political interests.” Also in 1986, the Chicago Tribune reported, “With the help of the administration and a Republican dominated Senate, pro-development forces won some big battles–increased offshore oil exploration, mining on national forest lands and a freeze on federal grazing fees.” No wonder there was an economic boom during the Reagan years. That, and lowering the marginal tax rate from 70 to 28 percent helped, as well. Ever since Ronald Reagan froze grazing fees, the battle has been on to raise them. Senator Harry Reid attempted to raise grazing fees, but was met with a filibuster in 1993 and ultimately “withdrew the range revisions that he had developed with House Democrats,” as reported in 1993 by the Associated Press. Read more at libertyunyielding.com

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (781445)	4/24/2014 9:19:44 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577124

Have you no decency, Senator Reid? Reid has become a McCarthy for our time Written By : Victor Davis Hanson April 24, 2014 We should ask Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) the same question once posed to Sen. Joseph McCarthy by U.S. Army head counsel Robert N. Welch: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” Reid is back in the news for denigrating the peaceful supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, a popular critic of the Bureau of Land Management policy, as “domestic terrorists.” McCarthy in the 1950s became infamous for smearing his opponents with lurid allegations that he could not prove, while questioning their patriotism. Reid has brought back to the Senate that exact same McCarthy style of six decades ago — and trumped it. During the 2012 presidential campaign, Reid libeled candidate Mitt Romney with the unsubstantiated and later-refuted charge that Romney was a tax cheat. “The word’s out that he [Romney] hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years,” Reid said. [iframe name="aswift_1" width="300" height="250" id="aswift_1" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowtransparency="true"][/iframe] Later, when asked for proof, Reid offered a pathetic rejoinder: “I have had a number of people tell me that.” One wonders how many names were on Reid’s McCarthyite “tell” list — were there, as McCarthy used to bluster, 205 names, or perhaps just 57? When asked again to document the slur, Reid echoed McCarthy perfectly: “The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes.” When the Koch brothers donated money that was used for political ads — just as liberal political donors George Soros and the Steyer brothers have done — Reid rushed to the Senate floor to question their patriotism: “These two brothers … are about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine.” The charge of being “un-American” is also vintage McCarthyite slander. Reid also has a bad habit of racial bigotry. He once praised fellow Sen. Barack Obama because he was, in Reid’s words, a “light-skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” When Reid was worried that he would not get enough Hispanic voters to the polls, he condescendingly lectured the Latino community: “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK. Do I need to say more?” Reid once singled out for damnation just one Supreme Court justice — Clarence Thomas: “I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.” Reid has also brought back McCarthy’s custom of vicious and sometimes profane insults. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Reid announced: “I can’t stand John McCain.” Of then-President George W. Bush, Reid said: “President Bush is a liar.” Reid claimed that fellow Mormon Mitt Romney had “sullied” his religion. When Gen. David Petraeus brought proof to Congress that the surge in Iraq was beginning to work by late 2007, Reid declared, “No, I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening.” He elaborated on that charge by labeling Petraeus — at the time the senior ground commander of U.S. forces fighting in Iraq — a veritable liar. Reid alleged that Petraeus “has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual.” When an African-American and Democratic appointee to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, William Magwood, opposed Reid on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site controversy, Reid called him a “first-class rat,” “treacherous, miserable liar,” “sh-t stirrer,” and “one of the most unethical, prevaricating, incompetent people I’ve ever dealt with.” Like a pre-reform-era politician, Reid entered public service relatively poor and will leave it as a multimillionaire. He has granted lucrative favors to casinos and rich investors who hired his sons’ legal firm. While in office he made considerable profits on private business and real estate deals. Some of those who donated to his campaigns got favorable government treatment. Reid recently paid his granddaughter thousands of dollars from his campaign war chest to make jewelry gifts for his donors and friends. Only after a storm of criticism did he reimburse his campaign fund. So how does Reid’s reckless career continue with the Senate leader avoiding the sort of congressional censure that finally did in McCarthy? Why is there is no progressive muckraker to take on Reid the way that Edward R. Murrow once exposed McCarthy? For the left, Reid’s utility as an attack dog (like McCarthy’s utility to Republicans) outweighs the downside of his crude bombast. His lurid, unsubstantiated charges against Romney were helpful in demonizing Romney as a rich grandee. His untruths about Petraeus helped shore up Democrats’ antiwar credentials during the 2008 campaign. Environmentalists did not object to his character assassination of nuclear power advocate Magwood. Reid’s viciousness also serves as a deterrent. Why tangle with the anything-goes Reid when it means endlessly replying to a litany of smears? Part Tammany Hall-style fixer, part pre-civil rights Democrat and part demagogic Joe McCarthy, Harry Reid is a throwback to a type of American politics better left forgotten. http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/reid-has-become-a-mccarthy-for-our-time/