Is Romney Really the best you all can do?

[Gpmo]

It needs to be pointed out these people aren't paying federal income tax. That is completely different from not paying taxes. Very few people in this country pay no taxes. It all part of looking at the bigger picture. Stop picking and choosing.

Also I do recall over the last four years the policy of the republican congress was stop and deny all Obama legislature. They were very successful. They then point and say look he didn't do anything. But this is a false rallying cry. He tried and was thwarted non stop by a republican tea party conservative movement who have done absolutely nothing and provided absolutely no options other than stop Obama. Who's fault is it really?

 

[dk55belair]

The whole problem in this country lies in the fact that we have become weak in productivity. Bring back the jobs, screw NAFTA, screw Foreign aid, screw the folks who sit on their butts, take care of the old and sick people and the Veterans, keep a strong defense and by putting people back to work, the tax dollars will increase, government spending will decrease and hopefully our country will rebound.

Romney= a sucessful business man who promises to bring good jobs home.

Obama= no resume, only plan is to make government bigger and break the backs of working folks.


I know which choice I think is best.


A what I got out of his comment was that 47% are going to vote for Obama's entitlement plans and he isnt going to reach those voters. (compare this to the Captain, inviting Harley riders to Hayabusa.org, a waste of effort....lmao

 

[GsxrBots]

(compare this to the Captain, inviting Harley riders to Hayabusa.org, a waste of effort....lmao

Can we do this? I'd like to hear from more HD riders on the site.. It'd be better than listening to political threads..

 

[skydivr]

HOW can job growth be up, when unemployment is up (can't be). Don't forget this President is also fighting a war, one of which HE himself said was necessary (and both of them likely were). We haven't finished it yet because we continue to puzzyfoot around what the real issue is and try to make-nice with those that hate us and can't wait to slit our throat at the first opportunity.

Do you NOT GET that the DOUBLING of an already out-of-control debt problem, created by both parties, creates a lot of fake movement in the economy? Obama's repeated "stimulus" packages does create some activity, but it's causing more harm than good (the harm just hasn't got here yet).

Arch, here's were you run into trouble with our plan:

1. Growth: You can't grow the economy if you grow it by growing govermnent (fake growth); you can't grow the economy if you suck dry those that have money to invest (because we've already seen what growth via debt gets us - government OR private).

2. Taxes - I actually agree that there needs to be a modest increase in taxes ($250K is too low, but I'd negotiate a incremental increase up to 5% increase on those with incomes over 1 Mil). The problem is that it MUST be coupled with an even GREATER reduction in the FREE RIDE that a really large percentage of the population is currently getting. Are you prepared to sacrifice some of that (the earned income tax credit)? Because remember, the President said "Fair" (but I guess the devil is in the definition of 'fair'). The problem is that it's easy to put thru a tax increase, but it's HARD to cut bennies - the Conservatives have been there before, and most might be willing to a tax increase but want to see it go both ways at the SAME TIME so they don't get snookered again.

3. You are willing to sacrifice the best heathcare in the world, in order for all to have poor healthcare....and socialize it by letting the most inefficient organization in the world (the government) be in charge of it? But, in principle, I'd agree that the costs are getting out of control, mostly because everyone is getting the BEST heathcare, whether they pay for it (the rich) or not (everyone else). We have been a free-market country/economy, but this smells like the rest of Europe (and we SURE want to be LIKE THEM).

4. Defense: Yes, it's gotten out of hand. However, every time we fight and win a war, we forget and cut the military to shreds, only to have to again spend massive $$ to bring it back when the crisis occurs. Clinton got a LOT of savings out of the base closures and defense cuts, but Bush had to spend it all over again in spades when we had to go back to Iraq and finish what his Dad should have finished in the first place. But, yes, Defense spending is going to have to come down. But if we are only going to take that money and spend it on a worthless social program GIVING it to someone who is squandering it (about half of food stamps is fraudulent), I'd rather spend it on something that is more productive to the successful survival of the nation as earned by our service men and women and the industries that support (live off) it. At least we CREATE something with that money, as innefficient as it is.

4. Control Entitlements: There's the key issue, and one that the Dems CANNOT and WILL NOT control, and never have ever shown any ability to (but the Republicans are also guilty to some extent). There is NO WAY that the Democrats will go against their base and cut bennies (unless it's cut to one segment - those who made their wealth - and given to the other segment - those that didn't - aka redistribution) and you know it. And THE REST DON'T MATTER if this one is not achieved.

You and I are not going to live in the world of retirement and bennies that our parents and that those around us do now. We are going to ALL have to accept something less, and to single out one class at the expense of the other class will eventually ferment into what we see going on in Greece today or worse.

But, you are correct, BOTH sides are going to have to give up something, and the longer they put it off the worse this becomes. The problem is this President has already stated he's NOT going to give an inch, so in my mind that makes him a non-starter for re-election. Romney is ACTUALLY a MODERATE, compared to any of the other Republican candidates, Obama is NOT a moderate as much as Clinton would like to paint him as one...

 

[skydivr]

It needs to be pointed out these people aren't paying federal income tax. That is completely different from not paying taxes. Very few people in this country pay no taxes. It all part of looking at the bigger picture. Stop picking and choosing.

Also I do recall over the last four years the policy of the republican congress was stop and deny all Obama legislature. They were very successful. They then point and say look he didn't do anything. But this is a false rallying cry. He tried and was thwarted non stop by a republican tea party conservative movement who have done absolutely nothing and provided absolutely no options other than stop Obama. Who's fault is it really?

My view is that the Tea Party has saved us from ecomonic armegeddon, and served to remind the Republican party to stop some of their more RHINO ways (so I guess that's just a different perspective) The Tea Party aspires to the values of those that started our nation (basically, you keep what you kill) instead of socialism. And congress was only Republican majority for TWO of the last four years, let's get that straight...

You are right, everyone pays some tax. Sales tax, property tax, etc. - FULLY based on EQUALITY and consumption. You buy a bigger house, you pay a bigger property tax. You buy a nicer car, stereo, tv, and you pay more in sales tax. No argument, but that's a wash and therefore not part of any debate. ONLY in INCOME tax is the tax progessive in nature, and only in income tax are those who don't pay any taxes getting a cash rebate on those they NEVER PAID. Those who are driving the car and paying for the gas are getting driving directions from those back seat drivers who are getting a ride for free...

 

[fallenarch]

HOW can job growth be up, when unemployment is up (can't be). Don't forget this President is also fighting a war, one of which HE himself said was necessary (and both of them likely were). We haven't finished it yet because we continue to puzzyfoot around what the real issue is and try to make-nice with those that hate us and can't wait to slit our throat at the first opportunity.

Do you NOT GET that the DOUBLING of an already out-of-control debt problem, created by both parties, creates a lot of fake movement in the economy? Obama's repeated "stimulus" packages does create some activity, but it's causing more harm than good (the harm just hasn't got here yet).

Arch, here's were you run into trouble with our plan:

1. Growth: You can't grow the economy if you grow it by growing govermnent (fake growth); you can't grow the economy if you suck dry those that have money to invest (because we've already seen what growth via debt gets us - government OR private).

2. Taxes - I actually agree that there needs to be a modest increase in taxes ($250K is too low, but I'd negotiate a incremental increase up to 5% increase on those with incomes over 1 Mil). The problem is that it MUST be coupled with an even GREATER reduction in the FREE RIDE that a really large percentage of the population is currently getting. Are you prepared to sacrifice some of that (the earned income tax credit)? Because remember, the President said "Fair" (but I guess the devil is in the definition of 'fair'). The problem is that it's easy to put thru a tax increase, but it's HARD to cut bennies - the Conservatives have been there before, and most might be willing to a tax increase but want to see it go both ways at the SAME TIME so they don't get snookered again.

3. You are willing to sacrifice the best heathcare in the world, in order for all to have poor healthcare....and socialize it by letting the most inefficient organization in the world (the government) be in charge of it? But, in principle, I'd agree that the costs are getting out of control, mostly because everyone is getting the BEST heathcare, whether they pay for it (the rich) or not (everyone else). We have been a free-market country/economy, but this smells like the rest of Europe (and we SURE want to be LIKE THEM).

4. Defense: Yes, it's gotten out of hand. However, every time we fight and win a war, we forget and cut the military to shreds, only to have to again spend massive $$ to bring it back when the crisis occurs. Clinton got a LOT of savings out of the base closures and defense cuts, but Bush had to spend it all over again in spades when we had to go back to Iraq and finish what his Dad should have finished in the first place. But, yes, Defense spending is going to have to come down. But if we are only going to take that money and spend it on a worthless social program GIVING it to someone who is squandering it (about half of food stamps is fraudulent), I'd rather spend it on something that is more productive to the successful survival of the nation as earned by our service men and women and the industries that support (live off) it. At least we CREATE something with that money, as innefficient as it is.

4. Control Entitlements: There's the key issue, and one that the Dems CANNOT and WILL NOT control, and never have ever shown any ability to (but the Republicans are also guilty to some extent). There is NO WAY that the Democrats will go against their base and cut bennies (unless it's cut to one segment - those who made their wealth - and given to the other segment - those that didn't - aka redistribution) and you know it. And THE REST DON'T MATTER if this one is not achieved.

You and I are not going to live in the world of retirement and bennies that our parents and that those around us do now. We are going to ALL have to accept something less, and to single out one class at the expense of the other class will eventually ferment into what we see going on in Greece today or worse.

But, you are correct, BOTH sides are going to have to give up something, and the longer they put it off the worse this becomes. The problem is this President has already stated he's NOT going to give an inch, so in my mind that makes him a non-starter for re-election. Romney is ACTUALLY a MODERATE, compared to any of the other Republican candidates, Obama is NOT a moderate as much as Clinton would like to paint him as one...

There are some false arguements in there. The economy has been grown by big government before such as the TVA, the CCC, highway system, WWII, etc. This is not false growth.

Republicans increase the debt. Fact since Ronald Reagan.

That our Healthcare system is the best in the world is right wing propaganda. It's simply not true and it cost too much.

Obama would control entitlements but you are correct that the Dems won't. Only way i can argue this point is to flat out lie.

Our defense planning is crazy. We have to get something more effective as we can't afford the waste anymore.

 

[Gpmo]

My view is that the Tea Party has saved us from ecomonic armegeddon, and served to remind the Republican party to stop some of their more RHINO ways (so I guess that's just a different perspective) The Tea Party aspires to the values of those that started our nation (basically, you keep what you kill) instead of socialism. And congress was only Republican majority for TWO of the last four years, let's get that straight...

You are right, everyone pays some tax. Sales tax, property tax, etc. - FULLY based on EQUALITY and consumption. You buy a bigger house, you pay a bigger property tax. You buy a nicer car, stereo, tv, and you pay more in sales tax. No argument, but that's a wash and therefore not part of any debate. ONLY in INCOME tax is the tax progessive in nature, and only in income tax are those who don't pay any taxes getting a cash rebate on those they NEVER PAID. Those who are driving the car and paying for the gas are getting driving directions from those back seat drivers who are getting a ride for free...

When the tea party first started up I had agreement. When they were about fiscal responsibility and balance. They turned into anti lib anti everyone but conservative hard core right wing group pushing their skewed ideas of tax reform with falsehood and pushing a religious conservative message. They took over congress and made it what it is today. 10% approval rating (not that it was high before) a do nothing group. And as you have stated multiple times now about our current temperament, They are a major cause of polarized politics.

Now if they stuck to the balanced fiscal responsible group, I would support them. Because we all know this isn't sustainable. But balancing taxes has to be done on all levels and that includes the wealthy. Romney won't do that. There is no way he would.

As for repubs being I control for only two years. You are correct but that doesn't mean that they weren't able to stop legislation. There are so many legal shady tactics both sides use to hold up legislation and stop it that one party doesn't have to have majority. They did the same crap the Dems did for bush w and the repubs did for Clinton ect ect.

Anyhow. I think I'm a fan of flat tax.

 

[skydivr]

Agreed - the Republicans have a part in increasing the debt. But at least they tried to have a budget (this is the only time in HISTORY that a President never had a budget his entire term). But you have to admit, this President and his bumbling administration and his allies in Congress DOUBELED in ONE TERM the ENTIRE deficit up to that point- and project/intend to DOUBLE IT AGAIN in the next term - NOT SUSTAINABLE.

How can you deny that our Heathcare system isn't the best in the world, when those who can afford it from those socialized medicine countries (Canada a good example) COME HERE for treatment? Who is the #1 WORLD LEADER in medical research, medical equipment and drug research/production? The USA...Have you ever talked to someone that lives in these other countries with socialized medicine how they like it? They like how they don't have to pay out of pocket for much, but they really don't like waiting months for a proceedure or an apointment (by which is sometimes too little too late)...

You may be true in your belief that Obama would try to control entitlements, but his party WILL NEVER ALLOW it. I'd bet my money on Republicans raising/changing the tax code, at their constituents' loss and having a better chance at controlling spending to include entitlements than the DEMS, than I ever would on the Dems going against theirs. I believe most Conservatives realize they are going to have to pay more/accept less, but not unless everyone HAS SKIN IN THE GAME.

 

[skydivr]

Flat Tax? If you'd be a fan of the Flat tax, then welcome back to the Republican Party and I'd expect your vote, because the Tea Party is all about a FLAT TAX (unless you are going to immediately waiver 47% of the population from it). You may be right as they've gotten off track, but so have the Dems with Code Red, repeal of DADT, etc. etc. IF the most important issue is the fiscal survival of the US, then you are going to have to filter out all the other mouseturds that the parties are polevaulting over and make a choice, and it sure as heck isn't the liberals.

 

[Tufbusa]

Arch, your point of view can't be argued because your complete point of view is directly from the democratic "Talking Points". We all know the ratio of fact and fiction from those "Talking Points", don't we?

 

[MelodicMetalGod]

If you think about it there are two problems. The first is that we fought 2 wars for more than a decade, added medicare part D and also cut taxes and therefore revenue. Theis created a huge temporary hole. Add to that the money spent to stop the downward spiral of the economy and stabilize the banking system due to the mortgage crises cost a fortune. That is a ton of dough but our economy can grow out of that really without any problem. People underestimate the power of our economy.

The second problem is a long term structural problem that does center around entitlements. Bottom line is we are going to have to raise the retirement age, adjust benifits and do something with healthcare. No matter who wins the election we are going to have to get a hold of healthcare costs - we can't afford to have insurance companies skimming 25-30% off the top of our healthcare dollars. Taxes have to go up and some sort of socialized medicine is going to have to happen. The second part of this is defense spending. It's simply too much and our society is going to have to make a choice. Most of our defense spending is related to economic concerns, not true defense needs. No society has survived the model we are currently falling into and that IKE warned us about coming out of the WW@ and Keoran War eras.

So the plan is simple. 1) Grow the economy. 2) raise taxes to moderate levels (like where they were with Clinton). 3) Control Healthcare costs. 4) Make adjustments to entitlements that make them sustainable.

Can anyone do this? That's the big question. I don't thiink this is a fast process though, it's going to take a commitment from several administrations both R and D.

Did I answer your question?

I'm no expert, but I've a couple questions:
1) What if the economy is all grown up? (i.e., are we certain there is room for growth? If not, what then?)
2) Instead of raising taxes, why not just tax all income equally (flat tax) and...
3) hold the gov't accountable to not spending more than the tax revenue collected? (Any other business would be OUT of business if it routinely spent more than it collected. Our gov't has no fiscal responsibility, IMHO, b/c it doesn't have to since it can simply demand additional revenue from it's clients (us)).
4) RE: Controlling health care costs: The best question I've heard on the subject: Every other wealthy and developed nation in the world has some form of universal health care, yet we continue with a system that leaves millions without care and is the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy. What do we know that the other nations don't?


Republicans or Democrats, it seems to me that we simply elect the wealthy (who else can even afford to run a significant campaign?) to our highest offices and then wonder why our gov't favors the wealthy while the majority (middle-class) continues to struggle.

IMHO, until the population demands real change in terms of the system, I don't see a real change in our governance because, like any entity, the first priority of the system is it's own survival, preferably at the current status quo. That means, IMHO, that the current system serves itself (our elected officials) first and the people (the general population) second.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

 

[Gpmo]

Arch, your point of view can't be argued because your complete point of view is directly from the democratic "Talking Points". We all know the ratio of fact and fiction from those "Talking Points", don't we?

Like its any different coming from the republican right wing talking heads. Come on. Don't act like democrat invented talking points. Both sides don't and both screw every bit of truth they can.

 

[Tim99ws6]

How can you deny that our Heathcare system isn't the best in the world, when those who can afford it from those socialized medicine countries (Canada a good example) COME HERE for treatment? Who is the #1 WORLD LEADER in medical research, medical equipment and drug research/production? The USA...Have you ever talked to someone that lives in these other countries with socialized medicine how they like it? They like how they don't have to pay out of pocket for much, but they really don't like waiting months for a proceedure or an apointment (by which is sometimes too little too late)...

You damn right.

 

[shawnski]

all these arguements here is pointless... no one agrees on what good is for this country just like our goverment, democrats and republics and each one says what is the best for this country.. the bottom line will be another 4 years of S.O.S...

 

[skydivr]

How appropriate I got this today:

Warnings from the Great White North

In the late 1990s the Canadian economy was in real trouble as its deficit grew beyond the ability of the
nation to sustain it. Years and years of expanded spending and reluctance to tax combined to place Canada ont
the edge of bankruptcy and had all but thrust the nation into a grinding economic and political crisis that would
compromise the nation’s ability to function in the global community. Sound familiar? The Prime Minister at
the time was Paul Martin and he represented the Liberal Party – the party that had been largely responsible fort
he burgeoning federal budget. He also became the man who took on the Canadian deficit aggressively and took
steps to return Canada to fiscal soundness.
He was defeated in 2006 but replaced by a man who shared some of Martin’s fiscal orientations. The
population of Canada may be happy to see the financial house in order today but there was a great deal of
anger and frustration at the time and Martin’s tenure was extremely rocky. He is now on the lecture circuit and
the object of his interest is the nation south of the border – the US. He has been insistent that the US take real
steps to control its deficit and that this effort take place immediately unless the US wants to invite a real
economic Armageddon.

Analysis:
Canada today is hardly a nation without generous government assistance to those that need it and it
is hardly a nation with a miniscule tax burden but it is a nation that has had balanced budgets and managed to
maneuver through the recession of 2009 better than most. There are many things that differ between the US
and Canada and these can’t be overlooked or dismissed but neither can they be used as an excuse for the US
not to emulate some of what Canada did. The country is far smaller than the US and the debt was far smaller
as well. The cuts came during a time of global economic expansion and Canada was just starting to develop
the oil and gas reserves in Alberta but none of this made the process pleasant.

Martin warns that the US is running out of time and the consequences will be severe if nothing is done. The
bottom line is that the US is out of options and the private sector is simply unwilling to trust the actions of
government. The business community does not believe that Congress will choose a clear path and they are
sitting on their cash – as are the bulk of consumers. The fiscal cliff is just the latest impasse and nobody
expects a real solution – just another stopgap and another delay.

Martin suggests the nearly impossible – a straightforward conversation with the public about the real
dangers of a deficit out of control – followed by aggressive measures to ensure that it doesn’t stay this large.
That means deep and lasting cuts and it means real tax hikes on everybody – the wealthy, the middle class and
those who are not paying anything at all right now. That this can be political suicide is illustrated by the short
tenure enjoyed by Paul Martin. Wrenching a nation towards economic responsibility is not a popular stance.

 

[fallenarch]

The problem with a flat tax is the if you take $2,000 in taxes from a family of 4 making $60,000, that's a significant life style hit. On the other hand if you take $20,000 from a family of 4 making $600,000, it's no big deal. A flat tax is therefore regressive and disproportionately hurts the poorer tax payer.

The problem is that one side (republicans) is trying to destroy the current government. If one side wants to force a collapse of the system to remake it with corporations as the dominate force, you can't solve anything. The problem with the Tea Party is that they think they are the only "Real Americans" and they want to steal the country out from under the populace. They call themselves patriots, I call it treason.

There is no objective standard that says our system is number one. We do all the research and then sell the drugs in other countries for half what we pay for them? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Talking points Tuff? This from a guy who's only comment is "you ran out of talent" or "you need rider training" to every motorcycle thread???

 

[skydivr]

The problem with a flat tax is the if you take $2,000 in taxes from a family of 4 making $60,000, that's a significant life style hit. On the other hand if you take $20,000 from a family of 4 making $600,000, it's no big deal. A flat tax is therefore regressive and disproportionately hurts the poorer tax payer.

The problem is that one side (republicans) is trying to destroy the current government. If one side wants to force a collapse of the system to remake it with corporations as the dominate force, you can't solve anything. The problem with the Tea Party is that they think they are the only "Real Americans" and they want to steal the country out from under the populace. They call themselves patriots, I call it treason.

There is no objective standard that says our system is number one. We do all the research and then sell the drugs in other countries for half what we pay for them? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Talking points Tuff? This from a guy who's only comment is "you ran out of talent" or "you need rider training" to every motorcycle thread???

I think i actually spilled my drink on this one Arch - calling the Tea Party treasonous...I'd give that title to those that aide and abed our enemies...and we know who THAT is...

Taking $2k from a family making $60K isn't squat. Neither is taking $20K from someone making $600K. EVERYBODY HAS TO HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME or it WON'T WORK.

 

[MelodicMetalGod]

Agreed - the Republicans have a part in increasing the debt. But at least they tried to have a budget (this is the only time in HISTORY that a President never had a budget his entire term). But you have to admit, this President and his bumbling administration and his allies in Congress DOUBELED in ONE TERM the ENTIRE deficit up to that point- and project/intend to DOUBLE IT AGAIN in the next term - NOT SUSTAINABLE.

How can you deny that our Heathcare system isn't the best in the world, when those who can afford it from those socialized medicine countries (Canada a good example) COME HERE for treatment? Who is the #1 WORLD LEADER in medical research, medical equipment and drug research/production? The USA...Have you ever talked to someone that lives in these other countries with socialized medicine how they like it? They like how they don't have to pay out of pocket for much, but they really don't like waiting months for a proceedure or an apointment (by which is sometimes too little too late)...

You may be true in your belief that Obama would try to control entitlements, but his party WILL NEVER ALLOW it. I'd bet my money on Republicans raising/changing the tax code, at their constituents' loss and having a better chance at controlling spending to include entitlements than the DEMS, than I ever would on the Dems going against theirs. I believe most Conservatives realize they are going to have to pay more/accept less, but not unless everyone HAS SKIN IN THE GAME.

Having the best health care that money can buy is of no value to those who can't buy it. Similarly, having free (read universal, not actually free) health care is of no value if it is not available when needed. This is perhaps the harshest reality of resources/economics in terms of supply not meeting demand. This issue may have no ideal answer, but I think we would all agree that we owe it to each other to work towards a solution that provides decent and available health care for everyone. This issue is only of concern for those who are not wealthy since the rich will always be able to manipulate any system to acquire whatever care they wish.

 

[Tim99ws6]

We do all the research and then sell the drugs in other countries for half what we pay for them? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

That's simply an ignorant statement. Me sitting my American ass in Germany last week say's your 100% wrong. Don't speak to things which you do not know about. Just because we have an FDA here, does NOT mean every other country does not have the same mirror regulatory and ethics committee as well. Trust me, you pay for it in other EU countries just as well. It's just in the form of TAXES. Put a penny in one pocket and take a nickel...eeerrr....euro from the other.