NEWT GINGRICH 12 STEP STIMULUS RECOVERY PLAN

.

Newt Gingrich's American Solutions group has produced a proposal for a genuine stimulus / economic recovery package.

[1] Payroll Tax Stimulus. With a temporary new tax credit to offset 50% of the payroll tax, every small business would have more money, and all Americans would take home more of what they earn.
[2] Real Middle-Income Tax Relief. Reduce the marginal tax rate of 25% down to 15%, in effect establishing a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 9 out of 10 American workers.
[3] Reduce the Business Tax Rate. Match Ireland’s rate of 12.5% to keep more jobs in America. [4] Homeowner’s Assistance. Provide tax credit incentives to responsible home buyers so they can keep their homes.
[5] Controlling Spending So We Can Move to a Balanced Budget. This begins with eliminating Congressional earmarks and wasteful pork-barrel spending.
[6] No State Aid Without Protection From Fraud. Require state governments to adopt anti-fraud and anti-theft policies before giving them more money.
[7] More American Energy Now. Explore for more American oil and gas and invest in affordable energy for the future, including clean coal, ethanol, nuclear power and renewable fuels.
[8] Abolish Taxes on Capital Gains. Match China, Singapore and many other competitors. More investment in America means more jobs in America.
[9] Protect Our Right to Vote in the Workplace. We must protect a worker’s right to decide by secret ballot whether to join a union.
[10] Replace Sarbanes-Oxley. This failed law is crippling entrepreneurial startups. Replace it with affordable rules that help create jobs, not destroy them.
[11] Abolish the Death Tax. Americans should work for their families, not for Washington.
[12] Invest in Energy and Transportation Infrastructure. This includes a new, expanded electric power grid and a 21st century air traffic control system that will reduce delays in air travel and save passengers, employees and airlines billions of dollars per year.

JANE CHASTAIN COMMENTS ON THE TAX HIKES

Jane Chastain is a southern California-based Broadcaster, author and political commentator. Her outspoken commentaries on the political, social and moral issues of the day can be read at WorldNetDaily, the most popular independent news site on the World Wide Web.

She is the author of I’d Speak Out on the Issues If I ONLY Knew What to Say and the host of such documentary videos as Freedom Held Hostage, The Feminine Mistake, Conceived in Liberty, and The Incredible Power of Prayer.

Despite her present emphasis on politics, Jane always will be remembered as the nation’s first television sportscaster or both the local and national level. In 17 years on the sports beat, Jane broke many journalistic barriers for women while working for WAGA-TV in Atlanta, WRAL-TV in Raleigh, WTVJ-TV in Miami, KABC in Los Angeles and the CBS television network.

During the 1980s, Jane focused her attention on improving government and never looked back. For more than a decade she hosted a national radio program, “What Washington Doesn’t Want You to Know.”

Jane Chastain is my cousin ... Check out her blog at http://janechastain.com

"When I was a sports reporter, I often went to the track to cover horse racing. A betting window was conveniently located near the press box. Eventually, I succumbed to temptation and put in, not one, but two modest wagers. One of my horses came in last. The other one died – he was literally hauled off to the glue factory. I learned a valuable lesson. That was the last bet I ever made.

One could only wish that Democrats would learn from their past mistakes: You cannot tax and spend your way out of a recession. It’s never happened. It’s not going to happen. However, they seem hellbent on betting control of the House and Senate – and perhaps even the 2012 presidential election – on their pursuit of these failed polices.

On Monday, the president called for $50 billion in infrastructure “investments” (the Democrat word for spending) in order to stimulate the economy but stopped short on calling it a “stimulus” since that word now has the odor of the north end of a cow headed south.

Meanwhile, Obama’s colleagues in the House and Senate are still scrambling to get the votes to save the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 sans the evil rich.

The rhetoric in this debate has been over the top and not very helpful to the average voter. Republicans have pointed out that Obama’s plan to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year hurts small business, the generator that must power the engine that is needed to drive us out of this recession, as many small businesses file as individuals.

Democrats fired back claiming that this argument is overblown because this tax hike will affect only 2.5 percent of the nation’s more than five million small businesses. Therefore, the impact is negligible.

Republicans counter by saying it effects 50 percent of small business income.
Enough! What is a voter to believe?

Time for a reality check: Both arguments are technically correct.

The term small business is a broad term and covers everything from a one-man or one-woman enterprise operated out of the kitchen or spare room to a manufacturing company with less that 500 employees.

Some 900,000 small business filing individual tax returns, have incomes more than $250,000 and will be hit by Obama’s tax increase. These small businesses account for about half of all small business income. Income is what you have left over after salary, overhead, insurance and, gulp, taxes. It’s called profit. Profit is a good thing. It’s these profitable small businesses that are able to hire more employees. Hello Democrats?

Yesterday, Obama offered a series of targeted “tax breaks” for small business. One hand giveth, while the other hand takes away, and the “giveth” part only goes to those small businesses that do what the government wants them to do, not what they need to do to stay profitable.
In the U.S., small business accounts for around half the GDP and more than half the employment. It may be hard to believe, but the top job provider in the U.S. is the small business with less than 10 employees, and those with 10 or more but less than 20 employees comes in second.

Obama’s policies are like a bully, hitting the most profitable small businesses over the head, while kicking the smaller, more prolific ones in the stomach. The smaller businesses, not directly impacted by the tax hike, will be impacted by the insurance mandate that fines small businesses that are not yet profitable enough to offer the kind of health insurance dictated by Democrats.
Just as a government cannot tax its way out of a recession, government spending also has a negative effect. When the government spends money it doesn’t have it drives up the deficit. And, the more the government borrows, the harder it is for small businesses to raise money.
In this economy, Obama’s policies will be the death knell for many small businesses struggling to survive. Furthermore, they will decimate small towns, many of which are made up entirely of small businesses.

Never mind the track record on these policies, Obama and most Democrats plan to ride this horse till it drops.

The polls show that, although the public may not fully understand this debate, it understands the impact, and voters aren’t willing to bet their jobs and their future on these losers. This is not what they signed on for two years ago.

The rhetoric is shrill and it will get louder, but it won’t change the end result.

Yes, fortunately, most people do learn from their mistakes."

WHAT WOULD THOMAS JEFFERSON SAY

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement:
"This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." ... Thomas Jefferson

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." ... Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." ... Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." ... Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." ... Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ... Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ... Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." ... Thomas Jefferson

HERE WE GO AGAIN ... WILL WE EVER LEARN

I was the Energy Czar for a Fortune 300 company during the Energy Crisis in the Mid-70's ... We drilled over 50 gas wells for our own manufacturing plants ... We even built our own "gathering system" to collect the gas from the wells to our plants only to have the government "confiscate" our gas when natural gas was being rationed.

There was no shortage ... It was a 'P....g Contest" between John Dingell and his congress and the Oil & Gas companies. They shut down plants all over the country ... Who lost? ... The American working family.

My company had over 10,000 people laid off while our government played 'political games"

Now it is the same thing ... We need an Energy Plan and it shouldn't be some partisan issue that gets pushed around for over 35 years. In the mid-seventies we didn't even have an Energy Dept. Now look at it!

I think we should vote them all out or at the least ask each congressman where he stands on energy.

Hell yes I am mad ... Where is the outrage ... We need to take our country back ... This November is a good time to start.

MID-TERM ELECTIONS

What is with all this talk about Liberal, Conservative, Moderate Right, Moderate Left and "Tea Party"? To me it is very confusing and still doesn't define the candidates.



What I would like to see is a simple chart that lists all the "Key" Issues and where each canidate stands on each issue and where you stand on each "Key" Issue. This is an easy way to "find" the candidate that best fits your requirements and comes the closest to "getting your vote."



Remember, there is little chance that a candidate is coming to agree with all your "Key" Issues. Also, the candidates do not like to be "locked" into an issue as it doesn't give them any "wiggle room" if they get elected.




Candidates don't always tell it straight and take positions that they have no intention of ever keeping after they are elected. Remember President Obama's promises to have the most transparent administration ever; Vote on no bill until people have had a chance to read it; and, Not have any "lobbists" in positions in his administration.



You have to sift thru all the promises and "drive by" media reporting to find the candidate that best fits your "Key" Issues.

THE BEIGHEY-TRUMAN-BORING-DUBOIS CONNECTION

There is an old proverb that says, “You are only two [2] people away from knowing anyone in the world.” I know it is probably not true but it is amazing when you talk to people how you interconnect with them.

I just finished watching the four [4] hour mini-series on PBS about Harry Truman. He was quite a man … A simple man with no college education who failed many times in his life … He failed as a farmer … Failed as a Haberdasher filing for Bankruptcy when he was thirty-seven [37]. Married the one and only girl in his life, Bess Wallace. His mother-in-law never thought he was good enough for her Bess even when he was President of the United States.

I am old enough to remember that nobody liked him and his approval ratings were in the 20’s … 22-23% … the lowest of any president … ever.

Slowly, people have come to respect him and he is now considered one of our “best” Presidents.
He came a long way and earned the respect of the people … He spoke what he felt and thought and earned the title “Give’m Hell Harry.” Who can forget the sign on his desk “The Buck Stops Here.”


BEIGHEY – TRUMAN CONNECTION

My connection to Harry Truman was through my grandfather Clifford Beighey, who himself was a Haberdasher with a Haberdashery on 1012 Connecticut Avenue NW in Washington DC. Thr building has been torn down to make way for a high-rise Office Building.

Clifford and my grandmother lived Several miles up the road on Connecticut Avenue in a very nice apartment at 4801 Connecticut Avenue NW, Apt 604. In 1996, the apartment building was still there and looks the same.

What follows is an account as told to me by my Grandfather … It is slightly different than the account on the PBS Documentary.

“The Vice-President, Harry Truman, and Bess lived in an Apartment across the street from us on Connecticut Avenue … they had no Secret Service and no car or driver.

I would go to the bus stop to ride the bus down to my store and waiting at the stop would be Harry Truman. He would get on the bus with me reading his newspaper as he made his way to his office. I knew who he was but even though we exchanged courtesies we never had long conversations on the bus trip.

One night during the summer, I awoke during the early hours of the morning and it was so bright outside you would have thought it was daylight.

There were floodlights and police everywhere … I had no idea what was going on but found out later that day that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had died and Harry Truman was the President of the United States and he was now entitled to Secret Service Protection.”

After only a little over 80 days in office the little man from Missouri with the wire-rimmed glasses was thrust into the biggest job in the land … President of the United States.




THE BORING-DUBOIS, PA CONNECTION

One of the Secret Service assigned to protect President Truman was Floyd Boring.

Floyd Murray Boring, grew up in DuBois, Pennsylvania and graduated from what was Sandy Township High School before it merged with

DuBois High School. He spent nearly five years as a Pennsylvania State Policeman after graduating from high school. He entered the Secret Service in November 1943 and joined the White House protective detail in March 1944.

I believe he grew up in and around the Dixon Avenue area of Sandy Township.

Little is heard about Floyd “Toad” Boring in an around DuBois but he had one of the most interesting careers of anyone from DuBois, PA.

Floyd M. Boring, guarded five presidents … Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson.

Mr. Boring was with President Franklin D Roosevelt when he died at Warm Springs, Ga., in 1945, and accompanied his body to the funeral at Hyde Park, N.Y.

He was not with President Kennedy's Secret Service detail in Dallas when Kennedy was assassinated (That said, Mr. Boring played a pivotal role in the security planning of JFK's fatal trip to Dallas, as he was in charge of the advance arrangements, according to the research of Secret Service expert Vince Palamara.)

Boring’s involvement with President Truman was his most famous assignment.

On the afternoon of Nov. 1, 1950, Truman was taking a nap at Blair House, where he was living while the White House, across Pennsylvania Avenue, was being renovated. Mr. Boring was stationed outside Blair House with several uniformed White House guards, while two Secret Service agents were posted inside.

“It was a beautiful day, about 80 degrees outside,” Mr. Boring recalled in a 1988 interview for the Truman Library. Mr. Boring had been teasing one of the uniformed guards, Leslie Coffelt. “I was kidding him about getting a new set of glasses,” Mr. Boring said. “I wanted to find out if he had gotten the glasses to look at the girls.”

Moments later, at 2:20 p.m., two men approached Blair House and opened fire with pistols, trying to shoot their way inside and assassinate Truman to further the cause of independence for Puerto Rico.

Mr. Boring, drawing his .38-caliber Colt pistol, known as a Detective’s Special, fired a bullet through the hat of one of the gunmen, Oscar Collazo, grazing his scalp. Mr. Collazo was also shot in the chest, and bullets grazed his nose and an ear. He was captured at the entrance to Blair House as Mr. Boring kicked his pistol away from his side.

Griselio Torresola, the other gunman, shot Mr. Coffelt, who killed him with return fire. Mr. Coffelt died of his wounds hours later. Two other White House policemen were wounded.

When the shooting stopped, Mr. Boring went up to see Truman and, as Mr. Boring recalled it, “He said, ‘What the hell is going on down there?’ ”

Mr. Boring later said that in addition to firing the shot that grazed Mr. Collazo’s head, he thought he had fired the bullet that hit Mr. Collazo in the chest. But in their book “American Gunfight” (Simon & Schuster, 2005), Stephen Hunter and John Bainbridge Jr. wrote that the bullet may have been fired by a White House policeman, Joseph Davidson, and ricocheted off an iron fence before hitting Mr. Collazo.

Mr. Collazo, the surviving gunman, was imprisoned until 1979, when he returned to Puerto Rico, where he died in 1994 at 80.

While guarding Truman, Mr. Boring also dealt with a frightening moment on the Potomac River one day when Truman struggled while swimming off his yacht, the Williamsburg.

Truman was not a good swimmer, Mr. Boring said in his oral history interview, and when he got into the water he started to struggle. Seeing his plight, and with others panicking around him, Mr. Boring threw Truman a life preserver and helped pull him in.

In the mid-1960s, Mr. Boring visited Truman at Independence, Mo., and found that Truman remembered him. “He said, ‘You’re the guy that saved my life, twice.

Floyd Boring retired in 1967 and entered private security work.

Floyd “Toad” Boring died on February 7, 2008 at the age of 92.

So, there is the connection … Larry Beighey to Clifford Beighey to President Harry S. Truman to Floyd Boring to DuBois, Pennsylvania … My Hometown.

A REAGAN CONSERVATIVE?

I have always admired and respected President Ronald Reagan since I heard him speak on TV for Barry Goldwater in 1964 ... He seemed so clear what he believed in ... His unwavering principles.

What is A Reagan Conservative?

I have always been fond of Reagan’s triad model of conservatism, wherein the stool is held up by the three legs of values, national defense, and free markets.

The 3 legs of a Reagan Conservative are:


SOCIAL ISSUES ................... VALUES
ECONOMIC ISSUES ................. FREE MARKETS
NATIONAL DEFENSE ISSUES .........MUSCULAR DEFENSE

People who conform to these principles are called Reagan Conservatives ...

Reagan set out to cut income taxes, to reduce the Federal Budget, to increase defense spending, and to deregulate U.S. business.

Reagan's economic plans were built on a theory called supply-side economics. This theory asserts that when taxes are cut, the money that is put back into the economy stimulates the production of more goods and services, thereby increasing jobs, with the result that more taxes are generated than were cut at the beginning of the process.

I would consider myself to be a Reagan Conservative.

DRILL BABY DRILL

THIS IS "DROP" 29, IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME, FROM A DROP IN THE BUCKET ... IT WAS WRITTEN IN 2006 ... 4 YEARS AGO ... IT IS WORTH INCLUDING HERE AS LITTLE, IF NOTHING, HAS BEEN DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT IN OVER FOUR [4] YEARS.

If You Build It, They Will Come

Serving as my company’s Energy Czar during the 1970’s energy crisis, I gained some extensive experience in the energy field. In my opinion, during that period, the consumer got caught up in a battle between the government and the energy companies. They said there was a shortage of fossil fuels; but, surprisingly, when the price of oil got high enough, there was no longer a shortage.

There are several long-term energy areas – such as solar, wind, corn alcohol, etc. – that are research-intensive and expensive but give promise as long-term solutions.

For years, I have felt that there was some middle ground for energy growth. These would include drilling in the ANWR fields of Alaska and off the coast of Florida. But in my opinion, the one that has the greatest potential is nuclear power.

Only 20% of the U.S. energy supply is nuclear and there have not been any new plants put in operation since 1979 – over twenty-five years ago. In fact, a nuclear power plant has been built in the Northeastern area of the United States and has NEVER been turned on.

Are there dangers? Of course … but don’t the rewards far outweigh the risks?

Worldwide, as of May 2005, there are 439 nuclear energy reactors in operation and 137 under construction, planned or proposed. Of the 137, NONE are in the United States.

So where are they?

France: 78% of the French energy supply is nuclear, with 59 reactors in operation.

China: 15 reactors operational with 31 in the works.

Russia: 17 nuclear reactors operating, generating 17% of Russian energy usage; they have another 13 underway or planned.
Japan: 25% of their power is generated from 54 operating reactors, and they have another 14 in their future.

South Korea: 20 nuclear generation plants producing 40% of their requirements; another 8 planned.

England and Canada: These two nations have more reactors per capita than the U.S., with 40 plants in operation and 5 under construction or planned.

What do these countries know that we in the U.S. don’t?

With the right regulations and controls, nuclear power can be our shortest path to achieving a self-sufficient energy level that will greatly reduce our dependency on imported oil.

Surprisingly, decreasing our dependence on foreign oil will increase the oil supply and decrease the price of the imported oil … The Arab sheiks need the money … Supply and Demand wins again.

CAPITAL GAINS

I think I understand the taxation on Capital Gains and Corporate Dividends. It is double taxation. The Federal Income Tax code taxes a corporation’s profits at the Corporate Tax Rate before any dividends are paid. When the corporation pays dividends to its stockholders, the stockholders dividends are again taxed. This is double taxation.
It is true that the elimination of the dividend tax would benefit the wealthiest taxpayers. However, a recent article in the USA Today newspaper indicates that 52 percent of the households paying taxes now own corporate stocks; so, the elimination of the tax on taxpayers’ dividends would decrease the taxes and increase the disposable income for a majority of the taxpayers. The wealthiest taxpayers will receive a much greater reduction in their income tax than a middle class taxpayer.
What I don’t understand and don’t see mentioned in any news broadcast or newspaper article is what the wealthiest taxpayers would do with the reduction in
income tax they receive from the elimination of the taxation on dividends. What will they do with the increase in disposable income they receive?
It only makes sense that one of two things will happen with the increase in disposable income that taxpayers have realized:
• Taxpayers will spend the additional disposal income to buy goods and services from stores and companies. This rise in demand should increase the sales and profit of companies, hopefully generating additional capital investment and creating jobs.
• If the taxpayers do not spend the additional disposable income on goods and services, they are certainly not going to “hide the money under the mattress.” They will reinvest the increased disposable income in stocks, bonds and/or CD's, creating more investment dollars for corporations producing goods and services
or for banks to loan to individuals.
In both cases, the money supply for goods and services in corporations and banks is going to increase, allowing them to increase capital investments and/or loans, creating more jobs and increasing the company's profits, allowing them to increase dividends.
It has been proven that this type of “trickle-down” economics will stimulate the economy by creating more capital investment, which will increase wages and jobs, thus improving individuals’ disposable and/or investment income.
As Ronald Reagan stated so eloquently, “The government does not create jobs and improve the economy by higher taxation. It is private enterprise, through capital investment, that increases corporate profits and increases jobs and individuals’ disposable income having the greatest impact on the economy.” (See “Economic Growth.”)

Economic Growth

This "drop" was written many years ago but I just had to "dust it off." I certainly was not in favor of the Stimulus Bill that was going to immediately create "shovel ready" jobs. Unfortunately, it is creating jobs in the government sector which are paid for out of our taxes and are not lasting.

I am writing this Drop in the Bucket on June 7, 2004, as we are remembering the passing of one of our greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan.

I was very impressed with a quote that Ronald Reagan made that I have not yet seen on the TV or newspapers as they remember Reagan with wall-to-wall coverage of his legacy. I was so moved by the message that I had it blown up and framed … it hung in our company conference room for many years during the 90’s and now hangs in my private office.

To me, Reagan captured the difference between the government and the private sector in one concise paragraph – it speaks for itself and I will include it here as it was said and printed.

• 
  
  “Economic growth is created by people who produce things. The more that’s produced to meet increasing demand, the more new jobs and services are created in turn. Other than short-term make-work projects, the government does not create jobs; the private sector does. How? By investing in new plants and equipment, and by researching and developing new products. And how does the private sector do all that? By having enough corporate profits to reinvest and enough incentives to make such expenditures desirable.”

I think he got it right … how about you?

Bottomed Out

Did you ever have days when everything seems to go wrong … Those days when things get worse as the day goes on. I have experienced many of these types of days throughout my personal and business career. Like most people, I would complain about it to everyone and anyone who would listen – but I came to realize that no one really wants to hear about all your problems and worries.

My realization came from a vivid real-life experience that I had during the energy crisis of 1976. I was the Energy Czar for Brockway Glass Company. Brockway had drilled gas wells and had built a gathering system to pipe the gas over to the natural gas supplier. During the crisis, the gas company confiscated our gas and would not deliver it to our plants. Since glass manufacturing is an energy-intensive industry and we could not get enough natural gas, we had to shut the plants down and lay off all the people. We had only enough gas to keep the glass in the furnaces molten; there was not enough energy to manufacture any glass containers.

Every morning at 7 AM, I would have an emergency meeting with the President of the Glass Container Division to review where and how much energy we had so we could determine what our Emergency Operating Plan would be for that day. Since it was my job to procure the energy for the glass factories, I was under intense pressure and had many problems and worries.

Naturally, I would tell my “tale of woe” to anyone who would listen. During one of the worst mornings of the crisis, I was in the men's room when a co-worker walked in. He was a happy-go-lucky eight-to-fiver who liked to tell stories, shoot the breeze and gossip. He asked me, "How you doing?" I started to unload on him about all my woes and worries. Well, he hurriedly washed his hands and bolted out the door ... he couldn't wait to get away from me.

It hit me like a ton of bricks that people really did not care or want to hear about your problems. From that day on, I have tried not to burden people with my worries and problems and found that the best approach when someone asks you, “How are you doing today?" is to simply grit your teeth and reply "I have bottomed out ... I’m on the way back ... I’m doing fine."

If You Can’t Say Anything Good, Don’t Say Anything At All

I think it was Will Rogers who said, “if you can’t say anything good about somebody, then don't say anything at all.” I wish I had said it because it is so true and expresses something that I am constantly trying to overcome. It is a continuous battle to not “go negative" about someone or something they said or did.

It doesn't serve any useful purpose for you to go negative, and it is hurtful and insensitive to do this. Instead, simply make positive comments or no comment at all.

I think it was in about 5 BC (Before Carole), when I was a “swinging bachelor,” that I had an embarrassing experience that stuck with me the rest of my life.

A cute girl that I always wanted to date finally broke up with the fellow she had been going with for a long time. I quickly seized on the opportunity and asked her out. Of course, while on the date she asked me what I thought of Mr. You-Know-Who. I was less than flattering in my opinion of him and didn’t hesitate to tell her what I thought. Of course, a short time later they got back together and I lost two friends. Lesson learned!

In no place is this lesson more true than in politics. You must be careful what you say about a colleague.

I could never be a politician … I am too inflexible. I discussed this one time with a close adviser to Speaker Newt Gingrich. I asked him how a politician could be so outspoken about someone’s position and later be all chummy with them. He told me that it was “not personal … just business.” You must be compromising because “today’s adversary could be tomorrow’s needed vote or supporter.”

If you observe most successful politicians, they will differ vehemently on the issues but are very careful not to attack personally.

So remember, "If you can’t say anything good, don't say anything at all."

What Have We Learned in 2064 Years

What have we learned in 2,064 years? ... So here it is.

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed ... lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." -

Who said this? ... Cicero - 55 BC

So, what have we learned in 2,064 years ... evidently nothing.