Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Fred Thompson Petitions For Tax Cuts Renewal

August 3, 2010 by  

Fred Thompson Petitions For Tax Cuts RenewalJust days after the Obama administration said it would not renew the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of this year, former presidential candidate and United States Senator Fred Thompson joined a campaign to oppose this decision.

Thompson combined his efforts with the League of American Voters—a non-profit that works to inform key policy issues that affect economic performance and national security—to launch a national petition to support a renewal and appears in the organization’s TV ad that airs nationwide.

According to the league, the increases will have an effect beyond just capital gains and dividend taxes and will affect taxpayers from all income brackets.

“A massive tax increase in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression would be cataclysmic to our nation’s broken economy,” said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters.

He added “It’s imperative for Americans to tell Congress and the Obama administration to stop this job-killing tax increase now.”

Adams also said that interested individuals can visit the Renew The Tax Cuts website to sign the petition. ADNFCR-1961-ID-19913419-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Fred Thompson Petitions For Tax Cuts Renewal”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=966 John Molina

    CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit

    By Ruth Carlitz and Richard Kogan

    Revised January 31, 2005

    The new Congressional Budget Office budget projections released today show that the nation faces a fourth consecutive year of substantial budget deficits. Some seek to portray “runaway domestic spending” or growth in the costs of entitlement programs as the primary cause of the shift in recent years from sizeable surpluses to large deficits. Such a characterization is incorrect. In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.

    The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs. [1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs.

    The Administration has repeatedly defended its tax cuts as a needed stimulus during the recent economic downturn. But the downturn is behind us, and the cost of the tax cuts is scheduled to increase in the years ahead. Indeed, some of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 that benefit only high-income households have not even started to take effect yet. The repeal of the “personal exemption phase-out” for high-income taxpayers, as well as repeal of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers, do not start to phase in until 2006 and do not take full effect until 2010. Estate tax repeal also does not take effect until 2010.

    A growing number of studies from highly respected institutions and economists have concluded that the negative effect on long-term growth of the increased deficits that the tax cuts are generating is likely to cancel out — and quite possibly to outweigh — any positive effects on long-term growth from reductions in marginal tax rates and other tax incentives in the 2001 and 2003 tax-cut packages. Stated simply, the tax cuts are more likely to reduce long-term growth than to increase it.[2]

    Another way to evaluate the recent trends that have caused the shift from sizeable surpluses to large deficits is to look at how spending and revenues each have changed as a share of the economy over the 2000-2005 period. Such an analysis looks at all changes in revenues and spending, not just those that resulted from legislation. It shows that while there has been growth in spending as a share of the economy, the lion’s share of the swing from surpluses to deficits stems from a major drop in revenues.

    In 2000, federal revenues equaled 20.9 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, the basic measure of the size of the economy. CBO projects that in 2005, revenues will amount to just 16.8 percent of GDP. This decline in revenues, equal to 4.0 percent of GDP, reflects the effects of the tax cuts, as well as an erosion in revenues caused by the bursting of the stock market bubble and a less robust economy overall. As Table 1 shows, the increase in program spending is less than two-thirds the decline in revenues.

    Furthermore, under the new CBO projections, total federal spending will remain lower in 2005, as a share of the economy, than in any year from 1975-1996. As this indicates, federal spending is not at an unusually high level, even with the large increases in spending for Iraq and anti-terrorism efforts. The deficits that the nation now faces reflect not an unusually high level of spending, but rather an unusually low level of revenue. Indeed, CBO projects that federal revenues will be lower as a share of the economy in 2005 than in all years of the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s

    • WarriorH

      June 22, 2010 | By Amanda J. Reinecker

      Overspending Causes Deficits. Period.
      Let’s get one thing straight: The dramatic increase in the federal deficit — which will rise to 8.3 percent of gross domestic product by 2020 — is exclusively the result of higher spending, not lower revenues. Long term, this higher spending will be driven by entitlements, particularly the rapid and unsustainable growth of spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security).

      All too often, the left argues that rising deficits are the result of too-low taxes, so we must therefore increase taxes to reduce the deficit. This is exactly the left’s argument today. But this is the wrong diagnosis.

      Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl debunks several progressive distortions about the federal budget. In a report complete with charts and in-depth, fact-filled analyses, Reidl, Heritage’s Grover Hermann Fellow in Budgetary Affairs, debunks the major myths one-by-one.

      Myth #1: The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts wiped out the $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002–2011.

      Fact: The tax cuts caused just 14 percent of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits.

      Myth #2: Future deficits are “the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”

      Fact: These policies play a relatively minor role in the growth of future deficits.

      Myth #3: Declining tax revenues are driving future deficits.

      Fact: Rapidly increasing entitlement spending will cause nearly 100 percent of rising long-term deficits.

      Successfully eliminating the deficit and balancing the budget requires drastic reforms. As the President’s deficit commission assembles recommendations to reduce our long-term deficit, it must target the historical levels of taxes (18.0 percent of GDP) and spending (20.3 percent of GDP).

      In his paper, “The Three Biggest Myths About Tax Cuts and the Budget Deficit,” Riedl details several necessary changes, which include:

      Reforming Medicaid and bringing long-term sustainability to Social Security and Medicare;
      Unwinding the bad policies in the health care law;
      Offering specific spending reforms, not just numerical targets;
      Avoiding tax increases; and
      Bringing transparency to the federal budget.
      “Growing long-term budget deficits are exclusively the result of rising spending, not declining revenues,” concludes Riedl. “Thus, common sense suggests that most reforms should occur on the spending side.” In other words, the federal spending spree needs to end.

  • J.M.R.

    its a great idea except its going to fall on deaf ears as all the dick-tater wants is to destroy our great country. look at the gulf of mexico where all the oil rigs have been to shut down. with help of E.P.A.[environmental pricks assoc]

    • http://www.authormelgoldberg.com Mel Goldberg

      Fred Thompson was a politician turned actor. He was a mediocre politician and an execrable actor. He is good at one thing, however: LYING. If the Bush tax cuts jump started the economy, why are we in the predicament we are in now?

      • http://naver samurai

        Different president, different situation. Obama bin Laden has practically destroyed what economy we had left. If these tax cuts expire, don’t come crying to anyone when your taxes go up. Bush, baaaaa! Tax cuts bad, baaaaa! Chaaaaange! Remember everyone:

        “Once we had Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope, and Johnny Cash. Now we have Obama bin Laden, no hope, and no cash!”

        • Stewart

          You don’t know what the hell your talking about. Here are the facts. Read and learn.

          In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.

          George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton’s policy in order to revive Reagan’s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his ‘base’ as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush’s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I’ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing. Do we have a deal? Republicans know return on investment.

          But the cost to the public has been a return to the exploding deficits of the Reagan years. Bush blew through Clinton’s surplus in his first year. The 2004 deficit reached $415 billion, a record. Still, its real size is masked by the fact that Bush has shifted $150 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to make the shortfall look smaller. It’s like pretending you’re richer when you move money from one pocket to another. Both sums have to be repaid, so the real amount borrowed is the $415 billion ‘nominal’ deficit plus the $150 billion from Social Security or $565 billion.

          This shell game with federal trust funds taints all official forecasts about Bush’s deficits going forward. For example, the Congressional Budget Office estimates Bush’s cumulative ten year deficit at $2.3 trillion, to be sure, a breathtaking shortfall from the $5.6 trillion surplus he inherited from Clinton. But as with the yearly number, this one ignores the trust fund sleight of hand, an omission of some $2.4 trillion. When this is added back in, Bush’s ten year deficit leaps to $4.7 trillion, $10.3 trillion short of Clinton’s number.

          Add it all together’ the ‘nominal’ deficit, the stealth siphoning from Social Security, and the permanent effects of Bush’s tax cuts and the 10 year deficit explodes to a mind-boggling $7.9 trillion. Within ten years, the government will owe more than $15 trillion. And this, at precisely the time the government needs fiscal solvency to begin paying the Baby Boomers their Social Security.

          And don’t forget the two wars George W. Bush got us in. In order for America to stay afloat with the billions and billions spent on the wars, he had to borrow trillions of dollars from list of countries that fund the American debt:
          People’s Republic of China
          Japan
          United Kingdom
          Oil exporters
          Brazil
          Hong Kong
          Taiwan
          Russia

          President Obama inherited the mess. What he’s done with the stimulus spending was a necessity. At least that’s what the expert economists say. He’s a good man, husband, and father, as well as an American citizen. With today’s technology, and the ways of find information about an individual during the process of a background check, especially if you’re running for the highest office in the country, it would be impossible for anyone to become president if they weren’t born in America.

          And by the way, he’s President Barack Obama. Or do you enjoy being an ignorant name caller.

      • s c

        Planet Earth calling MG. Ever heard of Herr Greenspan or Ben the Boob? Ever heard of Keynesian economics or a tax-and-spend Congress? Ever heard of social engineering programs that don’t work? Ever had both feet in the real world? Ever heard of the Fed printing press that cranks out non-existent MONEY 24/7? What the hell planet are you from, MG? Earth to MG – come in, please. Are you on the right frequency? Have you got your thumb on the mike? Oh, duhhhhh!

  • WarriorH

    Those damn Bush tax cuts keep rearing their ugly head. Good God, this drives the libs crazy! Now how the hell will they pay for all that spending?

  • Brad

    Well, the President want’s to blame President Bush for everything that has gone wrong. He can’t accept the fact that the democ “RAT” controlled congress since Carter has been to blasme for what’s happening today. Watch this video from the today show and you’ll get a better under standing of the message the rats have for this November, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=38534925&#38534925 The democ “RATS” can’t even accept responsibility for the mess they have helped put us into, it’s always the blame game, finger pointing, it wasn’t me, it’s time to change congress this November. People just remember 435 representatives and 1/3 of the senate is up for re-election, we can make change happen, elect responsible representation to congress, get the rhino’s out!

    • April

      AMEN!!! Also in 2006 the Dems took over the seats and reinstigated Carter and Clinton agendas, tying Bush’s hands. That’s is when the media focused on Bush bashing. Bush could have done a lot of things better his first six years, but his hands were tied starting 2006. We the People need to take responsibilty by voting and firsly, educating ourselves and our children about the Constitution and the issues so that we vote responsibley and rightly.

    • Michael J.

      It’s time for GW Bush to break his silence and come to the aid of his country once more.

      • Stewart

        Nah!

  • Eddie Gianola

    I was doing a crossword puzzle on my lunch break yesterday,and lo and behold,a clue asking for “first non citizen elected American President”? Of course Obama fit all the squares. It’s a pretty well established fact that this one man destruction derby is a fraud and if the congress would listen to the people,they’ve plenty of grounds to impeach. They,however,won’t because he’s already had his goons do background checks on all 535 members and has found so much corruption and dirty back porches to squeal on that he has ‘em right where he wants ‘em. That’s why come November we clean house and elect ordinary butchers,bakers,candlestick makers,ranchers,and small business people,
    and people like Sharron Angle. It’s important for Sharron to get elected because she doesn’t have near Dirty Harry’s money chest and it takes more than money to qualify for the job of U.S. Senator as far as the people are concerned. The laws lawmakers enact affect all of us so it behooves us to be politically savvy and elect people of principle and character. If you’ve been out of work for quite awhile don’t you think it’s time to wake up and vote correctly for the best qualified
    who believes in the Constitution so there’s less government and more free enterprise which opens up job markets whereby you’re earning a paycheck again? Or would you prefer your former firm remain so overburdened with government intrusion and regulations that their human resources doors are closed for years to come?

  • s c

    So is Fred bored, or does he really think he can change things? He’s from Tennessee as I recall, so that makes him at least one notch better than Tennessee’s #1 useful idiot, Gore. But, it doesn’t mean Thompson has any chance to make a difference.
    Fred would do better to tell America what really goes on in Washington.
    For example, Fred probably knows what it takes for a criminal to move into the White House and rip America apart and do it with impunity (ala Herr Obummer). It sounds like Obummer has a team of ‘experts’ who know which strings to pull, so retards like Reid, Dodd, Fwank, Schumer, Rangel and Waters will howl and perform like Pavlov’s dogs on cue.
    Like they say, “dogs of a feather jump into bed and sniff, scratch and infect together” (quite a fitting way to describe Congress, actually).

  • Dennis

    THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA NEEDS, FRED THOMPSON FOR PRESIDENT !

  • jopa

    The league is wrong.The tax cut will end for anyone making over $250,000 and not affect the middle class taxpayers.This is the truth the whole truthand nothing but the truth.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      jopa,
      Maybe the whole truth according to clinton!!

  • ONTIME

    I think it is safe to say without redundacy, his country is under siege from within and without, we are in a period that is becoming so intolerable we are bound to rise up and remake this government to restore our own freedoms, the time draws near.

    Many see the parallel of our founding and the way our government has now allowed the treasury to be raped and pillaged by a those who are less than stellar as representatives of a Republic based on judeo-christian morality. These elected officials have given over to power and control instead of serving as guardians of the principals upon which this nation was founded, we now have to restore our nations heart and soul, we have to find our own roots and practice the vow to maintain the freedoms which we were asked to pass on to future generations….May God find it in his heart to hold us in the palm of his hand.

  • Brad

    If you want to see what your projected tax increases will be if the Bush tax cuts are not extended visit this website http://www.mytaxburden.org/ and fill in your information from your 2009 returns. 2010 will not change, where you will see the change is in the amount you start paying in 2011 and when you file in 2012. Visit this site and see the difference http://www.mytaxburden.org/ between 2011 and 2012 my taxes increased 1,850 dollars, that’s with my salary and military retired pay, married, 2 kids, mortgage, education loans so on and so forth.

    • WarriorH

      Brad, you didn’t realize you are in the top 2% of wage earners?

  • Angel

    Rich guy petitions for tax cuts only for other guys. Boy, that is so out of touch! No wonder we keep getting are asses kicked in the elections!

  • Angel

    Even Ronald Reagan’s budget director argued against the tax breaks:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1&ref=contributors

    IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.

    More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

    This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one.

    • Brad

      Eddie W.

      The best way to make the Bush tax cuts permanent is to balance the federal budget and cut a whole bunch of fat from various programs and end non-useful programs that have not functioned in years. Waist is one of the federal governments problems, once waist has been controlled, next is accountability for every dollar spent right down to the penny. We need to quit playing the blame game and get to work fixing the problems of this country or else we will look just like Greece, people rioting because they didn’t their cheque, it’s coming may not be today but it’s coming.

      Right now the choices are not hard, end all spending on illegal immigrants, saving us/states 415 billion annually, balance the budget w/no new spending, repeal HCR and Financial reform bills, both are inadequate and will cost more $$$$$ in the future that we don’t have. Set term limits on congress 2 and out just like the President. Foreign aid, this country spends billions on and what do we get from it nothing, so let’s end it, and how about pork in those spending bills, the President should be vetoing each, wasn’t that a campaign promis? I could go on but some of us get the message, the hard left, progressives would be calling foul, but all people out of work who want to work should take some form of work just to start building a frame work for the future.

  • ELAINE

    BUSH TAX CUTS WERE FOR RICH ONLY WHAT DID YOU PEONS GET ??? SO HE CALLED ALL PEAONS THATS BUSH BRAIN DEAD HIS STUPID INVASION IS COSTING US TRILLIONS FOR WHAT ?? AND KILING OUR KIDS FOR WHAT ???

    • WarriorH

      You’re absolutely Correct! I received a tax cut and after that my property taxes doubled in 6 years and every imaginable regressive tax has been increased as well. Forward me your address so I can send you some more of mine.

  • ELAINE

    REPS DON’T WANT TP PASS LOANS ETC FOR SMALL BUSINESS WHAT DO THEY AGREE WITH WHAT IS REP PARTY ABOUT NO FOR EVERY GOOD THING TO HELP THIS ECOMNY OUT THEY WANT OBAMA TO FAIL BUT HE WON’T HE’S TO SMART FOR THE REPUKES IF HE GOT A SURPLUS LIKE CLINTON LEFT FOR BUSH WE WOULDN’T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSTATION WOULD WE ???

  • ELAINE

    IT’S A DAM SHAME WE HAVE A 2 PARTY SYSTEM IN THE US WE SHOULD HAVE JUST A 1 PARTY DEMOCRATE THEY CARE FOR ALL NOT ONLY THE RICH.

  • ELAINE

    WE ARE PAYING FOR BUSHS MISTAKES NOT OBAMAS

    • http://?? Joe H.

      ELAINE,
      I think u have your head deposited very deeply!!!

      • Bob Wire

        I think the term “cuts” in taxes ~ says it all ~ Taxes are not being raised, the “cuts” are being expired.

        How quick we are to get the tail wagging the dog with our loose talk and idle mind.

        It like “American hostages” ~ should have read “American’s held hostages”

        I don’t think we have hostages but maybe prisoners.

        We complain that government over does everything and there no such thing as anything being “temporary” with government.

        Well? here your chance to prove that statement wrong but 28% of voters don’t want it to happen. WhY? ~ I can understand 5% of American’s feeling this way. So that leaves 13% of you voting a wealthy persons vote. I ‘m left to think your sympathetic and see the wealthy as helpless in this matter?

        The way i see it ~ it’s the middle that’s been paying the most taxes and carrying the load of both the very top and bottom by virtue of our shear numbers and tax structure.

        Via social programs while at the same time bailing out top wages earner while subsidizing top end venture capitalist. the middle held hostage by business concerns considered “too big to fail” as losses are socialized and profits privatized.

        And we are borrowing money to do it!

        So what’s wrong with this picture?

        You say you want to quit borrowing? You say you want to quit spending?

        Well someone needs to pony up!

        Maybe you think it’s the middle can afford to pay more?

        I got news for you ~ the middle is about tapped out!

        We got two wars that still in progress and there never was budget arrangements made to pay for them.

        It’s not rocket surgery

        Placing “EXTRA” money in the hands of the wealthy with hopes of them spending it wisely ~ needs to work better the records shows it has.

        I’m questioning their loyalty to country at this point.

        America needs to invest in itself, in it’s “neighbors and neighborhoods.”

        To heck with the Middle east !

        I want to see something in my backyard and not to some National Cemetery

      • Stewart

        Probably not as deeply as yours. Stomach window anyone?

    • http://personalliberty Connie

      Elaine, you are a complete idiot! Most people with any scense know that tax cuts and cutting Government spending are the key to stimulating the economy. A one party government I believe I would call..hmmm Communism. Get your facts straight!

      • Stewart

        Not if it’s the manner in which G.W. Bush did it. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.

        George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton’s policy in order to revive Reagan’s, once again showering an embarrassment of riches on the already most embarrassingly rich, his ‘base’ as he calls them. He ladled out some $630 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% of income earners. In true Republican fashion, they returned the favor by investing over $200 million to ensure Bush’s re-election. Do the math. A $630 billion return on a $200 million investment: $3,160 for $1. I’ll give you $3,160. All I ask is that you give me $1 back so I can keep the goodness flowing. Do we have a deal? Republicans know return on investment.

        But the cost to the public has been a return to the exploding deficits of the Reagan years. Bush blew through Clinton’s surplus in his first year. The 2004 deficit reached $415 billion, a record. Still, its real size is masked by the fact that Bush has shifted $150 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to make the shortfall look smaller. It’s like pretending you’re richer when you move money from one pocket to another. Both sums have to be repaid, so the real amount borrowed is the $415 billion ‘nominal’ deficit plus the $150 billion from Social Security or $565 billion.

        This shell game with federal trust funds taints all official forecasts about Bush’s deficits going forward. For example, the Congressional Budget Office estimates Bush’s cumulative ten year deficit at $2.3 trillion, to be sure, a breathtaking shortfall from the $5.6 trillion surplus he inherited from Clinton. But as with the yearly number, this one ignores the trust fund sleight of hand, an omission of some $2.4 trillion. When this is added back in, Bush’s ten year deficit leaps to $4.7 trillion, $10.3 trillion short of Clinton’s number.

        Add it all together’ the ‘nominal’ deficit, the stealth siphoning from Social Security, and the permanent effects of Bush’s tax cuts and the 10 year deficit explodes to a mind-boggling $7.9 trillion. Within ten years, the government will owe more than $15 trillion. And this, at precisely the time the government needs fiscal solvency to begin paying the Baby Boomers their Social Security.

        And don’t forget the two wars George W. Bush got us in. In order for America to stay afloat with the billions and billions spent on the wars, he had to borrow trillions of dollars from list of countries that fund the American debt:
        People’s Republic of China
        Japan
        United Kingdom
        Oil exporters
        Brazil
        Hong Kong
        Taiwan
        Russia

        President Obama inherited the mess. What he’s done with the stimulus spending was a necessity. At least that’s what the expert economists say. He’s a good man, husband, and father, as well as an American citizen. With today’s technology, and the ways of find information about an individual during the process of a background check, especially if you’re running for the highest office in the country, it would be impossible for anyone to become president if they weren’t born in America.

        Just the facts mam, just the facts.

    • Stewart

      I believe you’re right on the money, Elaine. No pun intended. If one does their research, it is easy to find the facts. Bush, not Obama, got the country into an almost depression.

      Here are the facts. It’s a great read:
      http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1022-26.htm

  • Viktor Leben

    Fred Thompson is kind of bucking the tide. Americans want more taxes. Americans put the Obama in office because they want more taxes and social spending. That’s why we have a Democratic Congress !

    I hope Fred Thompson succeeds ! But he is just one man going against the crowd.

    Don’t blame me for higher taxes, I voted for Chuck Baldwin !

    You people commenting on this website, you should hire a financial adviser so you can keep your assets ! They talk about Gold and investing at this website, good place to start !

    The majority of Americans want to get their hands into your wallet, If you rearrange your finances, when they reach into your wallet, they won’t find any money !

  • http://www.personalliberty.com ROYCE AND LIZ RAMSHUR

    NO FUSSING OR CUSSING IS GONNA HELP. THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS WHAT THEY DOING AWAY WITH OUR RELIGION,EVERYTHING WE GOT IS THE GREAT LORDS UP ABOVE. IF YOU DONT HAVE JOBS PEOPLE STARVES,IF YOU HAVE JOBS NO MONEY COMING IN NO WHERE. GOD IS GONNA TAKE SO MUCH AND WILL HAVE THE LAST SAY. NO GOVERNMENT, PRESIDENT, CONGRESS,IS GONNA STOP HIM . UPPING TAXES AND TAXING PEOPLE WHO DONT HAVE IT YOU CANT GET BLOOD OUT OF A TURNIP,,,,

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.