Outdoor Adventure USA

This has been an interesting read for me. I enjoy the discussion and various ideas and opinions so I thought I add to the mix.

A wise person once told me when I reached voting age (my father even though at the time I did not know he was wise), The President is the figure head of the country, choose wisely, but choose the House and Senate even more wisely, because they are the ones that make the policies, good and bad. We keep pointing the finger at the President as the good or bad guy in all of this, but it is the inter-working of the bodies as a whole that are at fault. IMO our fore fathers viewed serving our country as an honor and privilege but it was not their life-long career. Today the majority of our elected representatives are career politicians (case in point some have been in office for over 10 years) and they know that their perspective parties hold the key to their continued future and will vote party lines. They will also sponsor bills like HR 607 because someone or some group contributed to their election. I feel that the HAM community, once made aware of this bill will do everything in it's power to defeat it. Thanks Dave for bringing it to the OAUSA's attention. I also have to wonder with everything going on right now, are bills like this a good use of our Representative's time.

our fore fathers viewed serving our country as an honor and privilege but it was not their life-long career. Today the majority of our elected representatives are career politicians (case in point some have been in office for over 10 years) and they know that their perspective parties hold the key to their continued future and will vote party lines.

This is one of the best explanations I have heard to a problem that seems to not be seen... More than likely one that will never be addressed due to the same problem... Thank you Voodoo

P.S. How do we petition against this bill?

xtatik wrote:Really?.....Dave, is this really your reality? Cuz if it is, you need to brush up on recent history.
This is about as maligned as anything I've read on the subject.
I seem to remember all of the firms you've mentioned above portending doom as early as late 2007. I remember Bush sitting on his thumb until late 2008 before acknowledgment of the problem. It wasn't until an act of intervention by Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke and others forced him into acknowledging that his administrations weak management of the SEC (who BTW, were literally partying with rather than overseeing the mucky-mucks in the firms you've mentioned....real chummy!) and activities on "the Street".

While your solicitous concern for my understanding of history touches me deeply, I don't think it will be necessary today. You see, one of the pitfalls of coming into a discussion, like this, after much has expired, is that sometimes important things are overlooked. Case in point. I would encourage you to read my previous posts carefully as you will discover that at no time did I condone or approve of any of the massive deficit spending by Mr. Obama or any of his predecessors. You would do well to review that part of Post # 6 where I made the following observation:

While Mr. Obama can claim the crown, we have had some significant contributions from his predecessors, none of whom were pikers. ALL unacceptable and unsustainable.

Shall I reemphasize the word ALL again? My point all along is that I would rather have the current crop of legislators who want to make money as opposed to the old crop who just were out of control. As I have said at least threee times so far, time will tell! I also thought it interesting to point out who the new title holder just happens to be.

Now it is my turn offer some help and suggest you review history. Tax cuts do not leave record budget deficits. History strongly supports the notion that tax cuts result in more revenue, not deficits.

DaveK wrote:Now it is my turn offer some help and suggest you review history. Tax cuts do not leave record budget deficits. History strongly supports the notion that tax cuts result in more revenue, not deficits.

This is revisionist history at it's finest.

First, the deficit is being recorded differently under President Obama - he had it added to the standard budget, instead of tracking it separately, as was done by previous administrations , in the interest of full disclosure to the American people - so, of course the deficit he inherited, and the wars he continued, make it look much worse. However, if you add the cost of the war to George W. Bush's budget deficit, it becomes astronomical. My point here is not that Obama is a saint - just that the statistics you cited earlier are molded for the convenience of a particular viewpoint, and not equivalent in fact. We do not have room to go over the accounting methodology of various administrations, but this can be easily researched by anyone interested, and even a quick read of the Wikipedia articles involving the U.S. debt since 1913 will reveal it's complexity, and the fact it does not relate directly to the lowering of taxes (that has barely any influence).

The administrations who had claimed "no new taxes", or claimed to lower taxes, ended their administrations with some of the largest deficits ( Gross debt in nominal dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992. The net public debt quintupled in nominal terms-Wikipedia) So despite marketing their public image as tax cutters, those who scared the voting public about the deficit did a fine job of making it much worse.

Then again, these "fiscal conservatives" didn't actually lower taxes, so...

I agree that those in Congress should be looking for ways to make money - but it is who they are making money for where you and I disagree.

They work for you and me, and that's who should reap the benefits of their efforts. Not stockholder-owned telecommunications giants, investment firms, or any other private concern. I do not want folks in Congress working to pad the bottom lines of private concerns, or those who have lobbied through political contributions - I want them to make money for the American people, to fund programs that will benefit us all. That's why they are paid, and paid well.

Stop HR 607

Edit: Dangit Larry, you stole summa' my thundah'. But, here's my reply anyhow.

DaveK wrote:While your solicitous concern for my understanding of history touches me deeply, I don't think it will be necessary today. You see, one of the pitfalls of coming into a discussion, like this, after much has expired, is that sometimes important things are overlooked. Case in point. I would encourage you to read my previous posts carefully as you will discover that at no time did I condone or approve of any of the massive deficit spending by Mr. Obama or any of his predecessors. You would do well to review that part of Post # 6 where I made the following observation:

Pfft, I don't even know what your trying to say here....But, if what your saying is that I'm concerned that you have it all wrong.....you'd be right about about that.

DaveK wrote:While Mr. Obama can claim the crown, we have had some significant contributions from his predecessors, none of whom were pikers. ALL unacceptable and unsustainable.

Clinton and his Republican held Congress delivered balanced and sustainable budgets that accrued an unprecedented surplus.....the same surplus that was quickly exhausted by Bush and the very same Republican held Congress. It would probably be fair to include the loss of this surplus when summing up Bush's first term spending and deficit figures. Don't you think so...for the sake of fair and honest debate?

DaveK wrote:Shall I reemphasize the word ALL again? My point all along is that I would rather have the current crop of legislators who want to make money as opposed to the old crop who just were out of control. As I have said at least threee times so far, time will tell! I also thought it interesting to point out who the new title holder just happens to be.

Yes, yes you did use the word "ALL", but I'd disagree with that point as well. The point I was making here, is that you were wrongfully stating as fact that Obama "can the claim the crown" for having spent more than his predecessors. In fact, he hasn't. In fact, Bush would wear the crown to this point if it existed. At this point, I'll remind us of another little tidbit. When comparing Bush and Obama's spending, we would be remissed if we didn't point out that Bush's deficit dollar totals do not include the costs of his wars. When Obama took office, he didn't think this was proper and he immediately changed this so that Americans could see the full impact that the wars' spending was having on our nations deficit. No Dave, Bush still holds the title for spending and debt accrual...For all our sakes, let's hope he keeps it.

DaveK wrote:Now it is my turn offer some help and suggest you review history. Tax cuts do not leave record budget deficits. History strongly supports the notion that tax cuts result in more revenue, not deficits.

Well, I wasn't aguing this point and was merely pointing to Bush's legacy. In his case, it certainly didn't work. Dave, help me get started in my review...More revenue for who? Can you give me a historic example during a presidential term...say sometime in the last century?

This is rich. From the party who invented “revising history”, comes the claim that others are now doing it. Stop the presses.

No, Larry, this is truth at its finest. For those interested in historical truth, here it is:

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Significant reductions in tax rates were instituted in the 1920s dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. The result? Revenue from personal taxes increased substantially despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Under President Hoover, tax rates increased significantly compounded in the 30s by Roosevelt, by increasing personal tax rates by more then 90%. President Kennedy understood that high tax rates damaged the economy and accordingly reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. The result? Tax revenues rocketed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, (an increase of 62 percent , 33% after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

The Reagan tax cuts
Tax bracket creep and the inflation of the 70s caused millions of taxpayers to be placed into higher tax brackets despite the fact that their inflation-adjusted incomes had not risen. To address this and to improve general economic conditions, President Reagan instituted large tax rate reductions during the 1980s. The result? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s. Once the tax cut took effect in January 1983, income tax revenues rose significantly, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The Bush tax Cuts

The Bush tax cut of 2003 resulted in predictions, from the left, that we would suffer from enormous revenue shortfalls and greater deficit spending. The result? Tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, (made before the cuts!)

The problem we face really has nothing to do with how much revenue we have. The real problem is that the spenders in congress keep spending way more than the money we bring in and that is the reason why we face the enormous national debt that exists today. I think both you fellas are not carefully reading my posts. I have consistently said that continuous deficit spending with resulting massive national debt is a problem caused by both parties. We are currently under an administration that has shattered all previous records. You can use whatever smoke and mirrors you like, (such as the numbers are not inflation adjusted) but the truth is that we cannot keep up this pace of deficit spending with a resulting record national debt.

Lastly, Larry, I am absolutely amazed at your attitude toward "corporations". Who in the blazes do you think owns stock in these corporations. You too should read my posts a little more carefully. I said:

Your concern that corporations will make a profit is perhaps the most revealing part of your post. Why would anyone be opposed to a corporation making a profit? This is a perfect example of why the last election went in the direction that it did. If your concern is corruption, then we are in agreement that it should be corrected. If you are opposed to corporations making a profit, then we must part company. By the way, isn't Dirty Parts a "CORPORATION"?

Since you have no problem with a corporation making a profit, then we are in agreement. If there is corruption, then we should address that problem.

Even though it is nearly impossible to keep this thing on tract, I will do it again. I would rather have a congress that is attempting to make money as opposed to one who has been out of control for many decades. If you-all feel that I have lampooned your heroes, it is because I meant to do so. Which part of my statements, that Mr. Obama, Mr. Reagan, and Mr. Bush spent too much, isn't getting through?

xtatik wrote: Pfft, I don't even know what your trying to say here....

Pfft, no surprises there!

Voodoo Blue 57 wrote:This has been an interesting read for me. I enjoy the discussion and various ideas and opinions so I thought I add to the mix.

A wise person once told me when I reached voting age (my father even though at the time I did not know he was wise), The President is the figure head of the country, choose wisely, but choose the House and Senate even more wisely, because they are the ones that make the policies, good and bad. We keep pointing the finger at the President as the good or bad guy in all of this, but it is the inter-working of the bodies as a whole that are at fault. IMO our fore fathers viewed serving our country as an honor and privilege but it was not their life-long career. Today the majority of our elected representatives are career politicians (case in point some have been in office for over 10 years) and they know that their perspective parties hold the key to their continued future and will vote party lines. They will also sponsor bills like HR 607 because someone or some group contributed to their election. I feel that the HAM community, once made aware of this bill will do everything in it's power to defeat it. Thanks Dave for bringing it to the OAUSA's attention. I also have to wonder with everything going on right now, are bills like this a good use of our Representative's time.

AMEN!!!!!

Well, lets try this again.

As most know by now, legislation is pending in the House which, if passed, will have a negative impact on some of our most popular Ham frequencies, the 440 band. The ARRL is taking the lead in rallying opposition to the bill. Should the bill become law, it will impact all Hams, including us. Remember, we are now transmitting our nets on the Palomar Repeater in San Diego on a 440 repeater.

We urge everyone to take a few minutes to help preserve the frequencies allocated to Hams. Here is how you can help. Go to the ARRL website and determine who your representative is and send a letter urging opposition. The information at this link will help you to determine your representative and offers a sample letter to send. PLEASE NOTE: 1)Send the letter to the ARRL, per their instructions and 2) use the letter as a sample. If they get hundreds of identical letters, it tends to have less of an impact.

Well, no fireworks here - Dave and I are in complete agreement regarding how to deal with this issue.

I urge all OAUSA members, and anyone who is interested in preserving the radio frequencies available to private citizens, to sent a signed letter to the ARRL in opposition of HR 607...

Here's where to find ARRL's sample letters:

LETTER OPPOSING HR 607

Here's where to find your representitive:

MY REPRESENTITVE