If we got our medical costs down to the level of the rest of the developed
world, it would solve almost all of the problems this editorial discusses.
Almost all of our long term deficit projections would be made manageable by this
The demographics, the economic growth and the culture changed? Yes, and people
in business and our government changed the demographics and culture. Now the
poor will be punished?Our birthrate was at a 35 year high in 2007,
by 2011 the rate had fallen due to the recession. People out of work were
responsible by holding of until they were on better financial footing.Immigration isn't down, it's been over 1 million each year for the
past ten years. Our country was at 100 million in 1920, by 1970 it was 200
million, 2010 300 million. We are growing faster than any time in history. Maybe we need to enforce immigration laws, cut programs to foreign
citizens, and cut back on the 3.5 million that come each year on visa and
residency until we can aford to take care of the people we have.
This is an excellent article. I applaud the author. However, I would add more
than "uneven family formation" in describing the adverse impact of the
breakdown of the traditional family unit. It is a self-evident truth that
unless we can fix families, we will not be able to fix anything else, and this
vexing family-failure problem cannot be fixed by the government. Government
programs merely entrench the problems by throwing money at them in an effort to
avoid the natural consequences of people's bad choices. Government
programs stand in the way of creating healthy families, at best whittling away
at the branches and never striking at the roots. Until we as a people
re-enthrone the sanctity of marriage and the honorable rearing of children at
the center of our social fabric and "compact," we will witness continued
deterioration of every worthwhile institution.
The question is this: How do you put the toothpaste back in the tube?
Certainly more costly programs is not the answer. From student loans to
windmills, the politicians are stumping for more perks. None dares talk of
cutting back for fear of voter backlash. No one since Reagan has dared to call
out welfare queens.Where's the candidate willing to tell us the hard
Romney is absolutely right and should never apologize for his comments even if
off the cuff. I watch the foodstamp crowd while in-line at the grocery store
buy expensive food that I cannot afford. I watch them drive off in expensive
cars that I could not afford. I see their expensive jewelry and dress that I
could not afford. I guess that's okay because I'm just a dumb tax
paying citizen without any smarts on how to beat the system.
Posters please read the article before commenting. I have no doubt many are
convinced that 47% are all freeloaders and prefer to live off the government
than work. The problem is the tax code not that people are lazy and
unmotivated. The 47% includes seniors collecting social security, college
students trying to obtain an education, and people with disabilities. My
ex-wife had a serious mental illness and collected social security disability.
She had served an LDS mission and did her best to get an education and strive to
be self sufficient. Tom Brokaw referred to our seniors as the greatest
generation. Romney called them freeloaders. Everyone agrees that gov't
spending is out of control and entitlement reform is needed. I just don't
undertand how insulting people is a good strategy to win an election.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealth out
of prosperity2. What one person receives without working for, another
person must work for without receiving3. The government cannot give to
anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.5. When half of the people
get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to
take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to
work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the
beginning of the end of any nation.
The greatest entitlement burden to our family budget is the out-of-control cost
of health care. My husband is a teacher and our public employee premium is now
$24,000 a year, with a $5,000 deductible. We pay 25% of the premium -- $500 a
month or 17% of our take-home pay. No government tax comes close. I am
offended both as a consumer and as a taxpayer, by the medical monster who has
the economy by the throat.
It wasn't just that Romney said there were 47%. It's how he described
them. This really isn't about the inelegant use of language (with which
Romney seems to have serious problems with), it's about an attitude which
was revealed and which most of us find offensive. And other things were said on
topics which were also disturbing. It better revealed the man. I don't buy
your campaign driven rationalization and excuse making on his behalf. A
discussion of the topic is fine, but come to the table in good faith, and put
welfare for the rich up for discussion as well. When the Republicans do that,
I'll take them, and this GOP paper, more seriously.
The wealth gap is the real problem--the fact that inequality is at unprecedented
levels is really what is killing the 47% on the bottom. It is just
as the Savior taught, you have fat cats sitting at a table full of more food
than they could possibly use before it spoils, but they are still doing all they
can to keep even crumbs from falling to the floor where those poor, undeserving
beggars can get them. After all, the beggars need to quit being victims take
more personal responsibility for themselves!
First of all Romneys comments were not an opening for a discussion of
entitlements. His comments were simply what they appeared to be bigoted hateful
distain for half of America.Secondly, entitlement programs are
always open for discussion and improvement as part of a civil societies social
compact. The crisis mode displayed by this article is faux political
partisinship. There is only one party wanting to destroy rather than improve
and sustain the social compact. Hidden in the body of the article is proof of
this desire.."that replace expectations of entitlement with opportunities
for ownership.". A civil and moral society creates a social
saftey net not as a replacemnt for personal responsibility..as the above quote
intimates..but rather as a response to a wealthy socieites attempt to care for
those who can't care for themselves. If that compact is broken by some,
fix it as best as possible, but turning the plight of the needy into a bad
chapter of Atlas Shrugged is immoral.
I'm seeing the abiding respect for those affected more in the President
Roland Keyser is right. Run the numbers. I'd add that the numbers of food
stamps issued will inevitably go down as we increase employment. Passing the
President's jobs bill would help there. And raising the ceiling for
payroll taxes would make Medicare and Social Security solvent.
I think this is an article that provides a fair assessment of the core issue,
but I think we need to consider some other facts. As the article notes, Romney
and his conservative friends arrive at their numbers by including people who get
favorable tax treatment such as the Child Tax Credit. Yet nothing is
said about the favorable tax treatment of dividend income that allows
millionaires like Mitt Romney to pay less in taxes than school teachers,
construction workers, police, the military, and others who have earned
income.Perhaps Romney and his allies should take a hard look at that
"entitlement" before attaching such harsh words to those on Social
Security, disabled veterans, and the working poor.
I think the real truth about taxes is that only consumers pay taxes. And all
people are consumers, rich, poor, business, and just people. Business pays no taxes, any taxes they remit to the government were part of
the price of the product they sold to a consumer. Any profits that they pay
income taxes on came from the price of their product paid by a consumer. Assuming that all Americans eat, drink and wear clothes and that those
things are only available through some sort of commerce (business), there are no
people in America that do not pay income taxes to support our government.
Except, perhaps, only those individuals who sleep in cardboard boxes in
alleyways and eat from garbage cans.It is the shame of America and
to all Americans that we permit our economic system to prevent so many Americans
from benefiting from the prosperity of America. Politicians often
rant about the symptoms (food stamps, welfare, no income tax) of poverty but are
not willing to do any thing about the cause of those symptoms.
Nosea, that is a great comment. Thanks.
Most people are just plinking around the edges of the problem. Mandatory
spending - "entitlements" and interest on the debt - are currently
consuming all tax receipts. The bulk of the federal government, including
national defense, is paid for by future generations in the form of borrowing.
The Fed apparently believes the solution lies in devaluing the dollar so the
debt can be paid back with cheaper dollars. Our sitting president believes the
answer is to borrow more money to hire teachers and policemen and throw money at
energy scams. How does that help? We need a turn-around expert. We need Mitt
Re Esquire and Pramitist, Mr. Romney's comments were not hateful nor were
they dismissive as has been indicated in many commentaries even in this quality
article. They simply reflect the difficult fact that through extensive
pandering the Democrat party has locked in "approximately" 47% of the
vote. Entitlements, government employment, corrupt contracting, needed programs
during difficult times all are used to maintain a dictatorial grasp on power
even when the result is to hold the very groups that are supposed to be helped
to quote the Vice-President "in chains". Why else with total failure in
domestic and foreign policy would this President consistently poll so high-46%
to 48%. Romney is simply recognizing this fact and noting that to win he has to
get those that are not locked in to this President no matter what and get them
to vote for him. He was and is right. Difficult task to do, but he seems to be
holding close to accomplishing this.
I am now drawing Social Security, and I do not consider it to be an Entitlement,
because of all the years I paid into it. There are parts of Social Security that
could be considered entitlements such as payments to dependents and those unable
to work, but if you consider Social Security an insurance company, then benefits
received are the same as any insurance benefits received. Medicare is an added
benefit to Social Security, to help people on Social Security, and it could be
an entitlement. Both Social Security and Medicare are needed programs, but like
everything the government touches, the management of both are screw up and need
reformed. Every American deserves affordable and effective medicare, and
we need to reform the system. Entitlements are one of the major problem in
America today, and they effect both ends of Te class system. The Upper Class
have been taught to believe they are entitled to all they can get no matter who
it hurts or kills. In the early 1900's business schools taught that there
was an ethically acceptable profit a business could make. There is no such thing
as ethics in business anymore.
Per Nosea's comment, did Jesus condemn truckle down all those years ago?
The conservatives love to slam the "welfare queens," but they will
never be able to solve the real problem, which is medical costs. Republicans
simply lack the backbone to stand up to insurance companies, medical
conglomerates, pharmaceutical companies, and the AMA. Remember when
the head of J.P. Morgan Chase, Jamie Dimond, testified before Congress? Even
though his company had just lost over two billion dollars in bad trading deals,
the Republicans were practically bending over and kissing his ring! If we cut
healthcare costs some corporate special interest will get less money, and the
Republicans won't allow that.
We have juiced our economy with 3% plus deficit spending for years. Since 2009,
this has jumped to approximately 10%. It is going to be very painful 1) When we
stop juicing the economy with debt, and 2) Extremely painful if we actually have
to reverse and pay down debt (e.g. budget surplus). In fact, by my knowledge,
no major economy forced to cut back has ever made the transition back to fiscal
responsibility through austerity. Once we get to that point (like Greece, maybe
Spain, Portugal and Italy), it will be too late. Economic calamity is also
certain. This is not doomsday talk, just simple reality. And we
don't have very long before we reach this point. If we get our act
together IMMEDIATELY, it MAY be possible to avoid calamity, but even now it is
not certain. One thing is for sure: Even if we make needed changes now, it
WILL be painful. But it will also be much less painful than it will be if we
wait until our global creditors force us to change our stupid ways.
The top 10 of those who pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX reside in the following
states:1. Mississippi2. Georgia3. Alabama4.
Florida5. Arkansas6. S. Carolina7. New Mexico8. Idaho9. Texas10. UtahMitt Romney was describing his base when he
indicted the 47%.Yet, his base will continue to vote for him.
What social compact? I didn't sign it. My social compact is the
Constitution, and the commitments I have made personally to care for the poor
and the needy. I chose these things freely.If your social compact
says you can take my property by force, and give it to someone else, then I
As usual, this opinion piece and most of the comments address a symptom or two
of a much deeper illness without mentioning the germ that is causing those
symptoms. We need to ask different questions. Why do we have so many people on
food stamps? Why do we have such high unemployment when corporations are sitting
on piles of cash? Why has inequality been steadily increasing since the Reagan
years?The underlying reason is the nature of the corporate version
of capitalism we have espoused, and this system is favored by both Republican
and Democrats. The system is designed at its most fundamental level to pay one
group (the owners and managers of capital) as much as possible while paying
another group (wage laborers) as little as possible. This is why labor
productivity is so important to businesses and why they ship jobs off to Third
World countries.A progressive tax code does a little redistributing,
but it doesn't address the underlying problem. If we want a healthier
economy, we must consider sharing a fair portion of ownership with those whose
efforts actually create the wealth. Then a flat tax would actually make sense.
To finish my previous comment, William Greider was right when he pointed out
that the problem with our current version of capitalism is not, as Marx
supposed, that people own capital. It is that not enough of them do. Fix that,
and everything else is much easier to figure out.
Romney was not wrong when he implied that we have a lot of "moochers" in
our society. He was wrong however when he tried to include too many people in
that group to make the numbers sound more dire (what? politicians do that??).A person who pays into social security all their life and is now in
retirement years, is not a moocher. A person who works hard and pays taxes, but
this year collected 3 months of unemployment when between jobs, is not a
moocher.A moocher (in my opinion) is someone who takes more overall
out of the system than they contribute into the system even though they are
capable of doing the opposite. With so many entitlements, it allows lazy and
dishonest people to live off the labors of others. For example,
almost everyone agrees that we should help the disabled, but now drug abuse,
obesity, fake illnesses, and fake injuries qualify people as "disabled",
entitled to a permanent check from other taxpayers.What Romney was
implying is that we have a large number of such people who will automatically
vote Democrat in order to keep the money flowing their way.
The rich get richer, poor get poorer... so what, if the rich complain about the
growing segment of poor? Take a look at the 47% (and growing). It's
obviously their own fault. Tax breaks for the rich have no impact on the Federal
deficit. Just ask Marie Antoinette!
While much of what was written here sounds good,it is the politicians and their
penchant to create another program to solve the problem, exacerbated by an
entitlement mentality and immoral behavior, that makes reform next to
impossible. Unless citizens, and more importantly, elected polticians,
understand the purpose and role of government, as enshrined in the constitution,
the words and problems will continue until a collapse. Social Security,
Medicare, Welfare, and a host of other government probrams were never meant to
be be sponsored by Government. Individuals, protected in their unalienable
rights, raising responsible and virtuous children, are the only protections for
a social compact that the writer envisions. Anything less is the paternalistic
viewpoint of corrupt men seeking power, something our government is quite
prepared to place on a pedestal and use to deny others their property, rights,
and their choice, none of which are American ideals! I commend the author for
his desire to help, but there is only one thing each of us can do; start making
marraige, family, and work count for something!
Ultra Bob, I'm waiting for you come out and tell me what you really Want,
since you seem ambivalent or fearful of what it is that will replace and make
sure the all Americans benefit from America's prosperity? It is obvious
that you don't believe our current system does that. What is your plan!
Because, to be sure, we have a choice about the economic system that history has
already proven to be the best. Communish, Socialism, and fascism are proven
failures? What do you propose?
The article spoke of the 47%. Some are extremely wealthy too. Where is GE,
EXXON, and others who pay no taxes and receive Washington welfare. Capital
Gains should be taxed as unearned income, which it is. It's also a job
killer. Why?Every dollar tied up in the stock market and other investment
instruments denies one dollar in the economy buying products and services and
creating jobs. VP Cheney had the right idea, he encouraged POTUS to borrow
money (after spending the surplus) to pay for tax cuts and two wars. Every
borrowed dollar has a multiplier effect because it passes through so many hands:
bank loans, developers, designers, manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors,
retailers and consumer who have jobs to start the cycle over again and again.You do not get that kind of action with a dollar sitting in the market.
The only action there is trading stocks like bubblegum cards.
Here is my reform.Ditch the entitlements, and get people a motivational
book on how to get out of bed.
Giving Romney any credibility for his statements is extremely gratuitous. The
editorial board misses the point and the reason for the fallout of Romney's
comments. What he said was that "there are 47 percent who are with him
(Obama), who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims,
who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them...These are
people who pay no income taxes" This is a class warfare statement on
steroids. The Editorial Board would like to edit his comments by adding the
word "federal income taxes", because without it the Romney quote is way
off. How about the retired who pays no federal taxes but worked 45 or so years
and now receive social security supplemented with some savings. Or how about
college students who borrow 100,000 dollars or more for medical or law school.
Or how about the large families with lower incomes, like many in Utah. How
about the single parent who is raising children or a child. Are these examples
some of the reasons why we need entitlement reform. Lets make sure our
statistical facts are right to start with.
I don't get how we have plenty of billions to hand out to Egypt, Libya,
Iraq, and Afghanistan but we can't afford to educate, clothe, or feed our
own people? HUH?
@ Say No to BO:Who has proposed more costly programs?
@Hellooo:"through extensive pandering the Democrat party has
locked in "approximately" 47% of the vote"You're
very poorly informed."Romney is simply recognizing this fact and
noting that to win he has to get those that are not locked in to this President
no matter what and get them to vote for him"If he were simply
recognizing, and describing, a "fact," he wouldn't be nearly as
terrified of the consequences as he, and pretty much every respectable
Republican commentator, very clearly are about what he said. Why do you think
he's doing everything but stand on his hand to take it all back? Some kind
of big liberal plot maybe? Against "facts?"
To Kent DeForrest,re: "The system is designed at its most
fundamental level to pay one group (the owners and managers of capital) as much
as possible while paying another group (wage laborers) as little as possible.
This is why labor productivity is so important to businesses and why they ship
jobs off to Third World countries."This is a sophomoric attempt
at economics that misdiagnoses causality and oversimplifies. There is not
enough room in this forum to fully address the fallacies of your argument. But
here is a brief response:Labor intensive tasks are being shipped
overseas because 1) the massive wage gap that emerged over long periods of time
between developed and undeveloped nations. 2) Increased trade which removed
barriers to the market functioning 3) Increased capital stock in less developed
nations which allowed their labor productivity to rise to competitive levels.Returns flow to the scarcest resources. The opening of third world
labor and manufacturing markets made these resources abundant at the same time
the shift to a knowledge based economy accelerated. The return to highly
skilled intellectual capital has also skyrocketed as these skills became
globally leverageable. These are the real drivers.
To Kent DeForrest:The best way to address the growing gap between
rich and poor is education. The poor lack the skills most in demand in the
global marketplace (math, science, computer programming, communication and
writing skills, etc.). Many have also learned poor behaviors that hinder there
ability to make ends meet. Some of it is not their fault, per se, but that is
not the point.Those born to middle and upper-class families learn
everything from academic to social and emotional skills that help them become
successful. While some on the right point to work ethic and risk taking, these
are a small part of the problem in most cases. The most valuable of
intellectual capital is the hardest to teach and to learn. One thing the right
is correct in? The more we force equality in outcome, the more difficult it
will be for those who work hard and sacrifice to get ahead. And as this
incentive is destroyed, so will the entrepreneurism and and freedom at the core
of American values be destroyed.
To Henry Drummod:Capital Gain taxes are gains made from money that has already
been taxed at income tax rates. You might argue that we should increase the
rate of this second tax, but you need to also consider the effect that such
would have on putting such money at risk, by investin into these ventues. With
every capital investment, there are many that turn into losses, rather than
Anybody who thinks that Romney has a disdain for the needy don't know this
man, his heart, his contributions to charity and the working class, and his
desire to bring personal responsibility back to America. He's not going to
take help away from the retired, the disabled, the truly needy. But, he will
make those who are capable of working get off government dole and contribute to
their own upkeep and the welfare of society. Look at his achievements and
compare them to where obama is taking this country, that is if you can face
reality. If you can't, just keep whining and spinning words to fit your
agenda, like the MSM constantly does.Now, DN, you give good talking points
but refuse to take a stand against our out-of-control federal government, and
Bush's/Obama's reckless spending. Government created this mess, and
they need to be held accountable for what's happening.
banderson, just as you are waiting for UltraBob to tell you his plan to replace
the economic model we have now, so is America waiting for Romney to reveal his
plan to help America. I do think we need to cut some entitlement
spending. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, which I paid into, is not
entitlement spending. I deposited money into these programs, I should get my
money out of it. These cuts shold also include entitlements we give
to large corporations. Why do execs at large corporations receive huge salaries
and insane bonuses when they run ocompanies into the ground or laying people off
so they can ship jobs overseas?
What Mitt wasn't correct about is that the majority of people that
don't pay federal income taxes are REPUBLICAN and WILL be voting for HIM
NOT OBMAMA!According to the Tax Foundation, eight of the top 10
states with the highest percentage of people who don’t pay federal income
taxes are decidedly Republican.
Romney was not discussing the entitlement problem, he was discussing who would
vote for him. I've read several speeches and articles he wrote about
entitlements and the gist was we need to get serious about how to pay for them.
I've searched Obama's speeches and can't find any where he even
recognized we have a problem. I would realy like to have a private recording of
Obama's meetings with his supporters. Probably more of the bible lovin,
gun totin red necks?
Thank you for this article. There are legitimate needs for
government financial help. And Mitt Romney has stated that we ARE a
compassionate people and WILL take care of those in need. But here are
some actual scenarios:A woman I know of gets food stamps because her
husband doesn't work. They have so much bread that they feed the extra to
the ducks on the downtown river.Two families had premie babies. One
family that works and had health insurance but still struggles financially was
left with a $20,000 co-pay bill. The other family are cradle to grave welfare
recipients and have figured out how to not have to work. Their bill after
Medicade was $0. A hard working family comes to a dermatologist but
they have to use over-the-counter treatments for their warts and other skin
issues because their insurance doesn't cover enough. Another family with
medicade comes in and has warts and everything else "taken care of"
without paying a cent. All the kids on welfare are sitting in the waiting room
playing with their smart phones. These scenarios are real per the
receptionist and family of the babies.
O'really of Idaho Falls - What is the point of your stories?Are
you suggesting that we work harder to eliminate fraud from the system?Or
do you suggest that there will always be fraud, so the system must be
eliminated?Your stories are about government programs such as food
stamps and welfare, but people take advantage of the private sector as well.
I've heard of people who get a couple months of their apartment rent paid
for because they know the right things to say to the local bishop. There are
urban legends of a person working a soup kitchen who watches someone drive up in
a fancy car and stand in line for a free bowl of soup. There will always be
people who take advantage of charity. If you end these programs to end the
fraud, what will happen to the truly needy?
Send a check for $47 to the political party of your choice.
Here is even a better idea.Send a check for $47 to the party of your
choice or attend more $50,000 a plate dinners.
@bandersen.What I want is to redefine the Capitalistic game, to the
change the rules. We are engaged in a fierce competition using rules that were
created centuries ago. There was a time when labor was a major part of a
product and distances between places and nations confined the action to the
local citizens. Today labor is taken from all over the globe and
the need for labor is greatly reduced. Utah workers have to compete with
workers in China and India where living conditions are different. Yet, most of
us can only purchase our needs from American businesses at prices set for
Americans. The game has changed. I believe that business is the
child of the society wherein it exists. When business is confined to a local
area, there is a balance between the players that keeps the game going and
benefits everyone. If a business buys products made in china and sells them to
people living in America there is no balance and society goes down. Any government would be good if operated by “Good” men, but since
there are no “good” men, Capitalism has the same fate as the others.
I'm not sure I even follow this meandering, goes nowhere editorial. Who
wrote this? And it ends up talking about leadership, but mentions no names?
Romney has more leadership in his little finger than Obama has in his whole
phony persona. Yes, talk about leadership, and the complete failure of it from
Obama. Any leadership on the economy? zero, none, zilch. Any leadership on
foreign policy? none again, complete abdication. Any leadership with congress?
again, none. For two years he refused to even talk to Republicans or include
them in any policy or legislative discussions. Then he spends the next two years
talking about how Obama's failures are the fault of the Republicans in
Congress? Did he mean to say Harry Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate? The
man is delusional.
By one measure of household income my wife and I are in the poorer half of U.S.
households last year. That's OK. I know we are still far richer than most
of the world, especially in non-tangibles like freedom and security. I'm
willing to give up more than my share of future prosperity to help solve our
current crisis, but I would invite those richer than us to join in. What entitles them to pocket their Romney-Rich tax breaks? Have you felt any
of the billions given up in tax breaks to the rich trickle down or create jobs
lately? The first reforms should include restoring our traditional
capital gains and estate taxes. Conservatives once disparaged
estate taxes as death taxes. Don't let that bother you. You don't
want your children to grow up as spoiled, entitled brats do you? Rather we
should disparage untaxed estates as unearned, inherited royal entitlements. Don't you worry about the return of the estate tax, though. If
Congress fails to extend the Bush era tax cuts for 2013, your heirs still
won't lose a penny of your inheritance unless you are a millionaire.
Ultra Bob, I understand your point about a world economy, and about the
importance of local business. You, however, are still stuck with a decision.
You can't have part socialism, part communism, and or part capitalism. You
have to make a decision about what you believe. I'm certain that bad men
can rise in any system. Communism and socialism have proven they can do more
damage to humanity than capitalism. Capitalists don't put people to death
by the millions. the problem we have here in capitalistic america is that weak
men have allowed corrupt officials and selfish men to control them. If men
believed in god, liberty, and free markets, socialism and communism would sease
to exist and capitalism would function with greater fairness, a fairness that is
never seen with socialism. In the absence of God, liberty wanes, and men and
women turn to Government to solve problems, an unfortunate turn of events that
only leads to ills greater than what might have been addressed if unalienable
rights had been protected.
Mr. Bandersen:The capture and trade for black slaves, their
transportation to the Americas and their forced labor caused millions of deaths.
It was all about people and companies making money and private property
rights.""If men believed in god, liberty, and free
markets,..."There was no shortage of churches and slave owners
in them in the USA, Brazil, Cuba, etc. Slavery was widespread in the South even
with a Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and a Bill of Rights. The
Constitution required a few more amendments, a Civil War and about 85 years to
properly regulate slavery out of our nation."Communism and
socialism have proven they can do more damage to humanity than
capitalism.”The rule of Marxist-Leninist Socialists have
caused about 100 million deaths.The rule of National Socialists have
caused about 60 million deaths.But Mr. Bandersen, how many deaths
have been caused by the Democratic Socialists of Western Europe????There are far more people coming to “capitalist” North America and
semi “socialist” Western Europe than are leaving. That is the real
world in 2012. Both regions are magnets to millions of human beings.
Social Security is not Entitlement, I paid a ton of money into it and now what I
receive is what I paid plus interest. Quit telling me I'm lazy because I no
longer work. I earned that right.
(7:20 p.m.) O'really's anecdotes inadvertently advocate for a single
payer system, where all can be protected and share the burden of health care
costs. Count me in.
Perhaps things have changed, but in 1998 when our family was out of work (right
after we had purchased a new car), I went to apply for food stamps. We had zero
income, but were turned down because of that new car (that in actuality the bank
owned). The rules were pretty stringent then - have they changed? My husband did
any odd job he could to bring in money, even if it cut back on the
"handout" of unemployment. I don't think it's situations like
these that Mr. Romney has a problem with. I would suppose that as a former
bishop and stake president, he has seen families who really just wanted a
handout rather than a hand up, who would rather freeload than share the load of
their own financial obligations. While he does need to be more "elegant"
in his articulation of such ideas, I don't think it's wrong to assess
the situation and see what can reasonably be done to solve these issues. Any
able-bodied person who can work should have to work for what they receive,
something along the lines of the CCC enacted by FDR.
More significant than entitlements is the complete lack of confidence in our
laws and lawmakers. Congress gets a 15% approval rating. Yikes! And who can
blame us?When you look at the mess created by Congress as they dealt with
welfare policy, mental health and immigration, it is hard to have much
confidence in them.And when they take to ignore their own laws (as in
immigration) they look all the more foolish.Not to mention their combined
rap sheet. Since when do we trust our governance to felons and adulterers?One response is to take ALL laws lightly and ignore the rule of law where
possible. That's called anarchy. And an unknown number of individuals
from all political views are silently doing just that.
It appears that liberals do not understand the tax code. When DIVIDENDS and
Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate than "regular income", it
ENCOURAGES investment. The people that put their EARNINGS that were already
taxed at the "regular income tax rate" into an investment - stock
market, private companies, 401k, Bonds, etc. this money greases the wheels of
enterprise. They also put their savings AT RISK - there's no guarantee
those invested funds will have an increase in value - in fact, they could LOOSE
value - the money is at risk. Let's say that Wage Earners chose to
NOT put their earnings into investments - how would entrepreneurs obtain money
to create NEW business, New products, conduct Research and Development, etc.?
If these new projects pan out, then there will be Profits that will be TAXED
from both the company and the investors. There is already "double
taxation" on Corporate Dividends (the corporation pays taxes on its Profits,
and the shareholders receiving the profits pay taxes on that SAME money again,
albeit at a lower rate). It's not a problem with not enough tax
payments to the government - it's about too many government expenses.
When I heard Romney's comments - the first thing he said was, "there
are 47% of the people that are going to vote for Obama - NO MATTER WHAT".
Then he started to breakdown who was included in those 47%. I did not get the
impression that Romney was putting down the elderly, the truly poor, or those
that have previously paid into Social Security and Medicare - I think he's
smart enough to know these segments. You'll notice Romney stayed clear of
any "race" or "nationality" segments that may be included in the
47%... so he's not trying to make a point about that either. His
point was about those that there are those that like "Big Government"
and all that it provides them -- and Romney's not for Big Government. This
is his voting base. He'll have to work to convince the others why his
leadership will provide them with a GOOD government and opportunity.
My point in sharing these real life scenarios is simply to illustrate the
ironies of the system, the waste and abuse that goes on. I don't have the
answers as to "how" it should be done, but the system needs to be
tightened up so that the help goes to those who really need it and that our tax
dollars don't get fed to the ducks.
England was killed by an idea:the idea that the weak, indolent, and profligate
must be supported by the strong, industrious, and frugal-to the degree that tax
consumers will have a living standard comparable to that of taxpayers; the idea
that government exits for the purpose of plundering those who work to give the
product of their labor to those who do not work. The economic and social
cannibalism produced by this communitst-socialist idea will destroy any society
which adopts it and clings to it as a basic principle-any society Dan Smoot FBI
Just as the children of Abraham so many years ago, the people in our country
wanted to be like the other countries with the liberal laws and lower moral
standards than their religion allowed under their type of rule, law, and order.
We are coming into a position where we already robbed Peter to pay
Paul, as Congress has been borrowing from the "overpaid" Social Security
sacred funds taken from people's pay checks for two generations. The
"baby-boomers" wouldn't ever become retirement age as the
"Woodstock" generation would fade away and no collect on their
"Social Security" process. However, due to the great medical programs
we have and the disability, Medicare, Medicaid and great additional state and
local programs, private and public, we have people living beyond the 1930 Social
Security life-span. Congressmen and women who started the process of taking
from those funds to pay for other government programs are now six-feet deep.
The rest of us have a government that is 20 feet deep in debt. People are
paying now for wanting to be like their neighbor countries instead of being the
country of our Founding Fathers. In 240 years, we forgot them.
If you pay for something, you’re entitled to it. The arithmetic being used
to say the nation cannot afford the current system is a bogus argument for not
making good on the investments of wage earners. Sustainability is a matter of
priorities and commitment. But Mr. Romney, Mr. Ryan, and others mask their
social restructuring agenda in cause-serving manipulation of the numbers.
We’re capable of doing the math ourselves.
Fiduciary responsibility falls squarely on the Government and that involves
auditing, scrutiny, and other accepted forms of control. Both bureaucratic and
elected officials have the requirements on their shoulders to ensure a safety
net for the people that entrust them to make reliable judgements for our future.
The system is not to be a Lehman Brothers and AIG type of process. Anything
can be bought from those companies but not necessarily what someone wants in 40
years after working and inputting a lot of trust in the government. I do not trust individuals as power corrupts. There needs to be a system that
is not corruptible. When Social Security was started it was not designed to be
robbed to pay current bills or expand government at the cost of those who paid
into the Social Security system. The trust of those who robbed went with them
to the grave. We still have some of those that robbed while in their elected
and appointed government offices knew the bill would come due sooner or later.
Sooner is now here and I am glad for people like Romney/Ryan who will look at
this and hopefully will not become politicized by robbers.
JWB,".....When Social Security was started it was not designed
to be robbed to pay current bills or expand government at the cost of those who
paid into the Social Security system....."Precisely. But as long
as the Social Security trust fund after all the doomsayer's hullabaloo
about its impending insolvency is STILL being dipped into to pay off program
deficits, guys like and Romney and Ryan are going to find me a hard sell in
persuading that current entitlements are not sustainable. Especially when they
start calling for a two trillion dollar increase in defense spending beyond what
the Pentagon is asking for.
O'reallyIdaho Falls, IDMy point in sharing these real life
scenarios is simply to illustrate the ironies of the system, the waste and abuse
that goes on. I don't have the answers as to "how" it should be
done, but the system needs to be tightened up so that the help goes to those who
really need it and that our tax dollars don't get fed to the ducks.8:34 a.m. Sept. 24, 2012============= Let me get this
straight you are worried and outraged about your neighbors "wasting"
your tax dollars feeding a few ducks?For the life of me, I
can't honestly imagine how you must be feeling right now about the $2
Trillion for Middle Eastern wars. [FYI; For a little perspective -- that
equates to every man, woman, and child in America each feeding a loaf of bread
every single day to ducks for the next 20 years, and that's without paying
the interest. But I haven't heard your outrage about that.]Talk
LDS Liberal...of course I'm outraged at overspending in every case. Some
aspects of the wars were unfortunate but not totally unnecessary. Right now
I'm outraged at so many things the current POTUS has done that I can't
fit it all into the space alloted by DN. But that's not what we're
discussing at the moment. May I refer you back to the topic of the article?
OK then -- I'm for a Flat tax.But uber-Rich like Romney
don't want one. Why?Because it takes away all the Deductable goodies
they become entitled too gor decades.When 1% owns 80% of everything,
they need to pay 80% of the taxes.That's HOW a Flat system
works.The RICH tell you not to change it, and scare the "little
people" into not supporting it.So, the Middle class ends up getting
cobblered.Romney's tax releases so far prove my point.They one he's keeping hidden would spark a American version of the French
To "LDS Liberal" again with the lies.Lets look again at the
stats on the top 1%. According to the NY Times and various other sources the top
1% own 40% of the wealth in the US. However, we do not tax people based on their
wealth, but their income. If we look at their income, they take home 16% of all
income in the US.Ok, now we know how much they own, and how much
they earn. Lets look at what percent they pay of all federal income taxes.
According to the the IRS, those same top 1% pay 40.4% of all income taxes in
2011. So, according to your reasoning, the rich pay their fair share. If you
base it on income they pay more than their fair share.Since they pay
their fair share according to your standards, does this mean that you will no
longer complain about the taxes that the wealthy pay?Can you please
pass that along to Obama.Does 20% of your income go to Federal
income taxes?Do you also promise a chicken in every pot and a car in
I don't believe that half of all Americans don't pay taxes. it has not
been proven at all! Besides, there is something wrong here if there are that
many people with no money! When the Wal Mart family owns more of our country
than 40% of of our population, and we are giving them all the tax breaks, there
is something wrong! Who are the ones with entitlements? So, it makes sense to
say that the people who have the least are the ones causing all the problems?
Gee whiz, I guess most of us should expect nothing , should we! They are talking
about us~! It isn't your poor neighbor that they refer to. Take a look at
the wars we have had! Do you think that may have contributed to our financial
problems? What about all those wealthy bankers and the automobile industry. I
guess that didn't hurt our economy either? Maybe if big business would pay
a fair wage, we wouldn't have so many poor people. HAve you ever thought of
that. Something is wrong with this story!
johnnylingo62,You believe that an increase in capital gains tax will
stifle job creation. Wrong. Historical data show that, allowing for a 6-year
lag between the cuts in the capital gains taxes and the resulting unemployment,
the low rates begun during the Bush era are actually behind the last two decades
of job stagnation. Google "capital gains correlation unemployment" and
you will find plenty of rhetoric on both sides but little evidence on yours.If corporate bigwigs see a big difference between regular tax rates and
capital gains rates, they start sucking money out of their companies by
exercising stock options, etc., so they can enjoy a lifestyle fueled by high,
low-tax incomes. Their businesses stagnate and do NOT create jobs. Today's capital gains tax rates are the lowest they have ever been in
over a century, except for the years preceding the Great Depression.
Roland Kayser: What would you do to bring our medical expenses back in line, or
make them comparable to the rest of the 'developed' world? Maybe first
off would be some form of tort reform?!