Posted by
RichQuips on Saturday, July 05, 2008 10:59:36 PM
Bill O'Reilly's commentary on 7/5 in Townhall and a refutation of the New York Times' stance of the U.S. as a "nation in decline" is correct and to be lauded. My viewpoints re: our international "friends" and the matter of U.S. "income" and related economics, are as follows:
As to the oft quoted canard (usually by Democrats) that the U.S. has “lost friends throughout the world”, this falsehood is flippantly cast about for political reasons and has no basis in fact. Of course, the occasional pictures of “people in the streets” – in various countries – demonstrating (oftentimes violently) against America (sometimes with flag burning), is intended to purport that America has “lost its friends in the world” – and media, politicians, pundits, academicians, entertainers, et. al, are only too ready to jump on this “lost friends” bandwagon. But consider some of the following aspects which negate this idea of “lost friends”: **Numerous democratic countries have had general elections – the country’s public participation – within the last 4 years (well within the Bush administration tenure), with some leaders re-elected and some newly elected … and research will reveal such leaders are clearly “pro-America / pro-Pres. Bush” (some very strongly and overtly “pro” positive), and such countries (“PM” = Prime Minister) include: Australia (PM Kevin Rudd, 12/07), Canada (PM Stephen Harper, 2/06), France (Pres. Nicolas Sarkozy, 5/07), Germany (Chancellor Angela Markel, 11/05), Greece (PM Kostas Karamanlis, 3/04), India (PM Manmohan Singh, 5/04), Ireland (PM Brian Cowen, 5/08), Israel (PM Ehud Olmert, 5/06), South Korea (Pres. Myung-bak Lee, 12/07), Spain (PM Jose Luis Rodriquez-Zapatero, 4/08), United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, No. Ireland, Scotland, Wales) (PM Gordon Brown, 6/07), ETC.
** Countries that have been terroristic and/or anti-America, have gravitated to being a virtual ally of America or at least have a more moderate or neutral stance on the world stage, and in these cited country examples, have renounced and are fighting terrorism – all developments during the Pres. Bush tenure. Consider >>>
>>> Eqypt – Pres. Hosni Mubarak has been leader since 1981, and maintained his presidency in a general election Sept. 2005, and is actively combatting the (illegal in Egypt) Muslim Brotherhood; in fact, because of Mubarak’s leadership, he is the object of overthrow / death by fanatic Muslim jihadists.
>>> Libya – Under the leadership of Muammar Al-Qadhafi (via a military coup in 1969), and switching from a clear-cut terroristic country (perpetrated the 1992 crash of Pan Am flight 103 and under UN sanctions started in 1992) – Qadhafi and Libya, with the influence and pressure of the U.S. (as attested to by Congressional reports), agreed in Dec. 2003 to reveal and end its program to develop WMD and to renounce terrorism. Thus, the U.S. rescinded, in June 2006, Libya’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, and Libya was elected by the General Assembly of the UN to a seat on the Security Council for ’08-’09, and now Libya & Qadhafi are also the object of overthrow / death by fanatic Muslim jihadists.
>>> Pakistan – From being a country that had actively sponsored the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Pres. Pervez Musharraf (took power in a 1999 military coup), was maintained as Pres. in a public election Oct. 2007, and has generally taken a stance that is anti-terrorism – albeit could-or-should be more staunch in alignment with the U.S. – but he and Pakistan face Muslim jihadist antipathy, and must contend with ongoing tension over the Kashmir region with portions controlled by Pakistan, China, and India.
** It’s important to note that NATO – which entails mutual defense provisions among all member nations, including the U.S. – has a burgeoning membership of 26 participating nations (with 3 due in 2008), and such membership has grown during the Pres. Bush tenure, involving several countries newly joined since 2004.
As to the matter of “income” … The Tax Foundation article "Who Pays What on Tax Day" from Commentary magazine presented interesting statistical tax aspects re: what "the rich" pay (an oft-used misleading term in this election year), e.g., incomes of $100k and greater pay 70% of all taxes ... tax cuts, child credits, a 10% tax bracket etc. (the Bush years) have "helped taxpayers in the statistical middle" and have "knocked millions of people off the tax rolls entirely" ... and about "120 million Americans - 40% of the U.S. population, are outside the federal income tax system".
Also, the "Congress Tax Increase" from HumanEvents.com ... details the "House and Senate passed budgets - 2008 (in a Democratic controlled Congress) which would raise taxes on every American taxpayer by an average of $3,000.xx per household" - along with a "hike in discretionary spending by 8 percent - with no cuts in a single government program" ... with the added potential burden that past tax cuts could expire, the AMT alternative minimum tax will be incurred on up to another 20 million Americans, the child tax credit halved, the marriage penalty re-imposed, the 10% tax bracket raised to 15%, investment taxes likely rising, the 55% estate death tax being reinstated, etc. And the budget gives "lawmakers a blank check to hike taxes even more to finance additional spending".
Kudos to Bill O'Reilly for his excellent article in negating any perceived "nation in decline" viewpoint about America.