OK, Mr Kelly,I still cant see a difference between what Romney is
proposing and what Bush actually did. And no one on the right seems to disagree
with me.Romney's main platform points look to beMore tax cutsmore military spendingless regulationrepeal
ObamacareYour letter states that we have an "opportunity to turn
things around"I would say that we are returning to the policies of GW
Bush. Can anyone make an argument that Romney's plan is
Obama has cleaned up fast enough! Put the party back in charge that caused the
messes in the first place! Does this make sense? In Utah, it makes complete
sense. Most people here still rate Bush highly when his administration caused
most of the major problems we now face. In my opinion Romney would be even more
disastrous! Vote Obama...wait never mind, we're in Utah. I should say
"Please be respectful of the will of the people and enjoy the next 4 years
like I will!"
The Romney/Ryan budget gives hefty tax breaks to the wealthiest American while
raising taxes on the middle class and slashing services for the elderly.Bush's tax cuts did not improve the economy, they just ballooned
the deficit.Let's not re-embrace Republican strategies that
have already been proven to be bad for the nation.
Romney - Ryan is a vote to go backwards to the Bush years. The only change
involved is that it would be worse. They are a total void of ideas. Even on the
Sunday talk shows they both admitted that they didn't know, telling me that
either they are clueless, or they have ideas that the American people would not
want. It has to be one or the other.
Its amusing to observe liberals constantly chanting, “its Bush’s
fault, its Bush’s fault” incessantly while they clap their hand over
their ears so they don’t have to listen to facts about Sub-prime mortgages
given by government mandate to banks for people who had no ability or intention
of servicing heir loans was actually started during the Clinton era that are the
real cause of our economic problems. This meddling by the federal government
caused a huge artificial demand for housing and the supply shortages caused home
values to skyrocket, at least until banks found themselves holding worthless
toxic assets in billions of subserviced loans. The bubble burst (as it always
does) and the value of your home has not stopped falling yet and liberals
pointed their fingers at everyone else (as they always do). Then there was the
UAW pension funds that GM and Chrysler had no way of paying hence the bailouts
with borrowed taxpayer money, effectively taxing people who have not even been
@ Mountanman, Bush had eight years to clean things up. And at the end of those
eight years, the economy collapsed. When will you guys take responsibility for
your actions rather than blame someone else for stuff that happened under your
watch. Since 1980, the GOP has controlled the White House 20 out of those 32
years, and a lot of that with a GOP controlled Congress. Take responsibility.
Don't be like Mitt Romney who a mere eight days, yes eight days, after
Obama took the oath of office, attacked Obama because the mess that the GOP left
him. It took 12 years and a world war to pull us out of the depression, and yet
the GOP is mad because Obama could not turn around the entire world wide economy
in eight days. Subprime mortgages were not the issue, it was the way Wall
Street packaged them into higher yielding tranches. It was not pensions that
did in the automakers. It was a mediocre product followed by the economic
collapse. But who worked to clean it up? Obama, and for that you attack him,
wanting to put back into office the EXACT same team of advisers. No thanks.
A vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote for change all right. Change in your economic
Mountan,Its amusing to watch you chastise the Democrats for
screaming “its Bush’s fault, its Bush’s fault” while you are screaming "it's Clinton's fault, it's
Clinton's fault"In the words of Clinton, "It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did"
Mountainman, not one person above has blamed Bush for the mortgage crisis. The
connection is Bush cut taxes, rasied spending, rasied the deficit. How does
that help us now? Secondly, bank de-regulation started long before
Clinton..however he did add his part, and should be held responsible. Third,
housing prices are not still falling. In fact they have started to rise in most
parts of the country reflecting more accurate values. Lastly, so GM still has
all of the government monies they received..hum..interesting..apparently you
know somehting no one else does.
@ Esquire, Again, you didn’t even try to refute the facts of the real
cause of our economic problems, you just chanted, “Bush, Bush,
Bush”. Bill Clinton remains much more complicit in our economic problems
than does GWB for all the reasons I gave you (sub-prime mortgages) All we ever
hear from Obama is, “tax the rich” tax the rich”! For the 16
trillionth time, the wealthiest Americans pay nearly 80% of all the federal
income tax revenue collected while nearly 50% of Americans pay NO federal income
taxes! If we taxed the “rich” 100%, it wouldn’t even make
small dent in our deficits and our national debt! The only solution is me must
stop the out of control government spending, which Obama clearly isn’t
willing to do! How can we trust liberals to fix our economy when they
don’t even know what is causing the problem? Bush is not the President
anymore, time to work on real solutions: Romney has them, Obama clearly does not
except monotonous chats of “Bush, Bush, Bush”!
"@ Esquire, Again, you didn’t even try to refute the facts of the real
cause of our economic problems, "Ok, If one is so
inclined to do some research, one would find that there are a multitude of
causes. According to politifact, which refutes the talking points
of both the left and the right lists these as causes (incomplete list). Feel
free to go there to see an explanation of these causes.Fed Reserve,
Homebuyers, Congress, Real estate Agents, Clinton Admin, Mort brokers,
Greenspan, wall street firms, Bush admin, So, yes, you have chosen
to focus on the Clinton admin because that fits your partisan narrative. Most credible source will not place the blame on any one player.And most partisans don't really want to know what caused the
problem. They just want to know how they can blame the other side. I am guessing this will not sway you from your set of "facts"
@ Mountanman, I did in fact address those issues. Really the only thing Clinton
did that he should not have done was sign off on the repeal of Phil Gramm's
(R-TX) bill to repeal Glass-Steagal. I was working in the financial services
industry, the Senate and at a financial services regulatory agency during that
era, and I assure you, your argument is wrong and misleading. And after I
addressed your points, you shifted gears and start talking about taxes. You
fail to address the fact that Bush had 8 years to "fix" things. And if
you don't like the tax structure, well, it was Bush who gave us the current
state of affairs. So stand up and honestly say, "Yeah, the Republicans made
a huge mess, and I don't like it." Then support President Obama, who
is the duly elected President of the United States, as he tries to clean up the
huge mess that the GOP handed to him. Can you do it?
Look at the "budget". $728 billion for military. $720 for Social
Security. $788 for Medicare/Medicaid. $250 billion for interest. Add it up.
Those items come to about $2.5 trillion. With total direct revenue to the
government in 2011 at $2.3 trillion, does anyone but me see a problem? I
haven't even listed the other $500 billion in "little programs"
that have to be paid for. When the deficit will be at least $600
billion no matter how the funds are divided up, how can anyone say that we
can't cut the budget? We've got to cut it at least $600 billion just
to tread water. That figure won't retire one dime of the current $16
trillion deficit that Washington has spent. The 47% who pay no
income taxes must be required to pay substantial taxes. They're the ones
receiving the lions share of the spending. Without "skin in the game",
they will demand even more.Revenue must be increased by PUTTING
PEOPLE TO WORK in private sector jobs. That takes them off welfare and produces
income tax, solving two problems.Romney knows how to do it. Obama
Its all Bush's fault waaaaaa
@ Esquire. You offered no facts, just spin! Thanks for the debate but I disagree
with you about taxes, as I have stated. Have a good day!
"First, cutting taxes and supporting free enterprise will help bring the
economy back in gear."Second-grade arithmetic is all you need to
see the fallacy in this line of thinking. Last I checked, cutting taxes reduces
revenue. And the conservative cries of "supporting free enterprise" are
meaningless political rhetoric. Even if this vague "supporting free
enterprise" scheme had the desired effect of giving us 5 percent growth in
GDP (which most experts agree is wildly optimistic), the additional taxes from a
5 percent increase in GDP wouldn't come close to closing the budget gap.The other part of the conservative agenda, of course, is to slash
spending. Frankly, I don't really care which spending you cut, the very act
of slashing government expenditures will immediately shrink the economy and cost
jobs (whether in health care or defense contractors or local retailers).Our predicament, unfortunately, is far more complex than this simplistic
letter acknowledges. There really is no realistic solution other than replacing
debt financing with increased tax revenue. And even that is iffy. But the
conservative "fixes" for our economic mess are straight out of
fantasyland. I would also give them an "F" in arithmetic.
The scary little secret that no one will acknowledge is that neither party has
the least idea about what to do to endlessly grow the economy. Eternal growth
is the foundation of all of our success plans. Anyone who thinks about it can
figure out that growing forever as the "uniquely American story" has a
natural limit. There are only so many people, no there are plenty of people,
there are a limited number of people with disposable income to buy our
"stuff". Hence both parties promise the moon in hopes that
they are in office when things are going well and not during a downturn that
imperils their reelection. Democrats will ballon the deficit through spending.
Republicans will balloon the deficit through tax cuts. Both count on growth to
save them from their own helplessness to really "fix" anything.
What is Romney cutting? He wants to increase defense spending. He claims Obama
is the only one that's cutting money from Medicare. He hasn't outlined
any changes to Social Security... is he going with the Ryan budget plans that
severely hack away at Medicaid? It's gotta be that, otherwise all he'd
have left is the 700 billion in ALL non-military discretionary spending to work
with and obviously when that takes care of everything else gov't does other
than entitlements war and interest on the debt... there's only so much that
can be taken from that, most of which will go to his defense spending increases
and pay for his tax cuts. Unless his claim is that his tax policy would be
revenue neutral like Ryan's is by closing loopholes. What they don't
tell you is that the number of loopholes that'd have to be closed is so
large it would take away things like the earned income tax credit or the child
tax credit and that leaves tax cuts for the rich, tax hikes for the poor. If he
wants "tough decisions", make the rich sacrifice something too.
Remember when Bush/Cheney wanted to take Social Security funding and "invest
it" [give it away] to WallStreet?and Yes -- I'm still
blaming Bush/Cheney - therfore the entire GOP - for the on-going economic
@Mountanman"Sub-prime mortgages given by government mandate to banks
for people who had no ability or intention of servicing heir loans was actually
started during the Clinton era that are the real cause of our economic problems.
"Democrats like Barney Frank were pushing forward plans to get
people into affordable housing like apartment complexes but it was the
Republicans who insisted on it going to full-blown houses. Did you ever bother
to think about the fact that Republicans had the Presidency and both chambers of
Congress from 2001-2006 and didn't bother to make any changes to that?"hence the bailouts with borrowed taxpayer money"Bailouts are loans, most get paid back with interest. That 700 billion dollar
bank bailout cost roughly 0 in the end when loans were repaid."If we taxed the “rich” 100%, it wouldn’t even make
small dent in our deficits and our national debt!"A 3.6%
marginal tax increase on the rich (repeal of bush tax cuts) is scored by the CBO
as decreasing the deficit an average of 70 billion a year the next 10 years.
I'm pretty sure that's at least "small dent".
@Mike Richards"That figure won't retire one dime of the current
$16 trillion deficit that Washington has spent. "We don't
need to do that. We just need to have the debt:GDP ratio stop increasing and
preferably start decreasing it and we can do that if say GDP goes up 5% a year
while the debt only goes up 1%. So we don't even need a balanced budget, we
just need to get them much smaller for fiscal solvency. Last year I
think GDP went up 3%, since our debt is at 16 trillion, to get the debt:GDP
ratio to decrease, we just need debt to go up less than 3% a year if GDP goes up
3%. 3% of 16 trillion is 480 billion, so that is the minimum standard we need to
get to to keep debt:GDP the same."The 47% who pay no income
taxes must be required to pay substantial taxes. "They still pay
sales, property, and payroll taxes. Possibly also state income taxes. It's
not like all of them are paying 0 tax. Bottom 40% only own 0.2% of wealth in the
@ Mountanman, don't run away.You wanted facts and I gave them
to you:1. The tax structure we have is due to the Bush tax cuts.2. Bush was in for 8 years and didn't fix a thing. At the end, we
got the worst recession since the Great Depression.3. Clinton
signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal, a bill drafted and carried by Phil Gramm
(and Rep. Leach, R-IA). I disapproved then and do now.4. Both
Romney and Ryan on the Sunday talk shows said they didn't know what cuts or
loopholes they would close. 5. Since 1980, the GOP has controlled
the White House 20 out of 32 years, much with a GOP controlled Congress.6. A mere eight days after Obama took the oath of office, Romney
attacked Obama because he had not yet cleaned upthe mess that the GOP left
him.7. It took 12 years and a world war to pull us out of the
depression.Gosh, there are more facts I mentioned but I am out of
the space allocated. Just because you don't want to hear the facts
doesn't make it spin.
Back to Bush policies and tea party shortsighted obstruction. Will be good to
be a hedge fund manager if they win.
Forget what Reagan said about the Status Quo. If the rest of you
continue voting for Ivy Leaguers regardless of party affiliation then US
politics will be a living application of Einstein's definition of insanity.
atl134: Let's pretend for a moment that you are right in that
raising the tax rates (another 3.6%) on the wealthiest Americans will bring in
an extra $70 billion a year...1) What makes you think that the extra
taxes will not drive even more money overseas? You just added another 3.6%
incentive for some billionaire to put even more of his money in an off-shore
account or put it to use in China, Brazil, or India instead of the USA.2) What makes you think that this will reduce the deficit at all? Big
government will swallow that $70 billion without even blinking. They will spend
even more because you told them the answer to the problem is to tax more instead
of spending less.3) What makes you think that $70 billion in the
hands of government will be put to any better use than it would have been in the
hands of those who earned it? Why would anyone other than political cronies
benefit from this action?
MountanmanHayden, IDIf we taxed the “rich” 100%, it
wouldn’t even make small dent in our deficits and our national debt! 8:17 a.m. Sept. 10, 2012============ Not true at
all…What part of the 1% owning 80% of EVERYTHING don’t
you understand?For example;If Mitt Romney paid 10% in his
taxes [as he claims but refuses to prove], that is the same as 1,000 Joe
the Plumbers Americans.If Mitt Romney paid 20% on his taxes, then
those same 1,000 Joe the plumbers never need to pay ANY taxes at all and the
Government still collects the same amount.THAT’S how absurdity
rich the uber-rich really truly are.THAT’S how absurdity out of
whack the tax codes are already.And Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck can
do the same for 3,000 average Joe-the-Plumbers each….but they will never
tell you that. It’s the uber-rich’s dirty-little-secret....and they
want to keep it that way. -- Except for Warren Beffet and Bill Gates that
As usual, liberals miss the entire point. This is OUR country. It doesn't
belong to the rich and it doesn't belong to the poor. It belongs to ALL of
us. Because it belongs to ALL of us, we ALL need to pay the necessary taxes at
equal rates. I'm sure that LDS Liberal has no objection to the
LDS Church telling him that tithing is 10% of his income. It isn't 20%
when he makes more than anybody else in his ward and it isn't 80% when he
makes more than anybody else in his stake. It is always 10%. (That
doesn't limit his generosity, because I'm fairly certain that he gives
much more than that as an additional charitable donaiton to help the poor.)Why then does he, or anyone else demand that the government use a
graduated tax bracket when a flat rate is good enough for our Creator? Does our
Creator know something about INCENTIVE that the liberals have yet to learn?With Obama, there is absolutely no incentive for anyone, rich or poor to
work at all.
Thanks for the suggestion. Respectfully, I am declining your offer.
I really enjoyed Bush, Cheny and Palin's speechs at the convention. the
base loves each of them.
Change does seem to be the motto of the Romney-Ryan ticket. They don't
seem to keep from changing their policies and promises. Romney has changed his
position at least twice in the last 24 hours on one of the main political issues
for this campaign - health care.
Mike RichardsI'm sure that LDS Liberal has no objection to the
LDS Church telling him that tithing is 10% of his income. It is always 10%. 4:10 p.m. Sept. 10, 2012============= Mike, I'm all for a flat rate.and 10% would be twice what we would
need if EVERYONE played by the same rules.[see Steve Forbes POTUS
campaign, 1992]but, the problem with using a flattax rate [like
Tithing] there can be NO deductions.No morgatege, No
dependants, No charitable contributions, No Corporate or Business
expenseses, ect.There in lies the rub.The uber-wealthy
use and mis-use these tax-loop-holes and exploit them.Therefore, their
rate is a lesser tax than those to whom they were originally intended.Fine - go with a flat tax, I'll support it.But - your
uberwealthy mythical "rich-guy" will be fighting you tooth and nail.And it will not be us "liberal" all men and corporations are
equal under the law.They only ones seeking actually getting a Government
"hand-out" are those same uberwealthy Corporations.
To LDS Liberal 11:44 a.m. Sept. 11, 2012Don't forget -- no
"carried interest" taxed as long-term capital gain instead of earned
income, and no ability to use tax free Cayman/Switzerland/etc. accounts.No way THAT would happen. Willard and his cronies would have a fit.
They just might have to pay their REAL fair share.
You lefties are so lost! Your guy has done not one thing but impose huge debt
on all Americans. My children and grandchildren will be floundering in debt for
generations while your socialist guy just makes everything worse and worse.