|
petsfed
Feb 5, 2012, 12:00 PM
Post #51 of 206
(1505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8571
|
curt wrote: Santorum has actually done an excellent job in the Republican debates pointing out that the healthcare system Romney enacted in MA is basically indistinguishable from Obamacare in many respects. Romney keeps denying this--but Obama will have a field day with that issue if Romney is the eventual Republican candidate. Curt
Before anouncing the death of Osama Bin Laden, he already did at the White House correspondents' dinner (start at 2:50 if you're impatient).
(This post was edited by petsfed on Feb 5, 2012, 12:02 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Feb 5, 2012, 1:12 PM
Post #52 of 206
(1495 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30105
|
I am curious... has Romneycare been successful/effective in Massachusetts? serious question.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 5, 2012, 1:34 PM
Post #53 of 206
(1491 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17626
|
I think Obama vs. Romney is going to be pretty boring. I personally want Gingrich to get the nomination just so the general election/debates will be fun to watch.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Feb 5, 2012, 2:18 PM
Post #54 of 206
(1486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8571
|
I don't know that it has, but the fact that Romney gave it a try should be pretty damaging amongst the soshulizm crowd (which is why Santorum is using it against him). However, if it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, I think we'll have a best-interests-of-the-citizenry battle where each one tries to supply a reason why their plan will work, why it isn't socialism, and why the previous iteration of their plan failed.
(This post was edited by petsfed on Feb 5, 2012, 2:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Feb 6, 2012, 4:57 AM
Post #56 of 206
(1437 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2390
|
cracklover wrote: caughtinside wrote: I am curious... has Romneycare been successful/effective in Massachusetts? serious question. Depends on your definition of "success". I've been out of MA for a while, but my understanding is that it was immediately successful at driving down the number of uninsured. However it was hoped that this would lead to the overall cost of healthcare going down, and that did not immediately happen. As I understand it, they're only just starting to see that happen. GO
Here's one take:
http://www.frumforum.com/...-bent-the-cost-curve
In reply to: US National Avg Spending Growth 2004-2006 11.40% Spending Growth 2007-2009 7.86% New England Spending Growth 2004-2006 9.23% Spending Growth 2007-2009 9.15% MA Spending Growth 2004-2006 14.51% Spending Growth 2007-2009 8.28% NH Spending Growth 2004-2006 16.69% Spending Growth 2007-2009 10.10% NY Spending Growth 2004-2006 10.55% Spending Growth 2007-2009 8.02% OH Spending Growth 2004-2006 9.56% Spending Growth 2007-2009 7.89% TX Spending Growth 2004-2006 12.14% Spending Growth 2007-2009 9.05% |
|
|
|
|
flesh
Feb 6, 2012, 12:11 PM
Post #57 of 206
(1410 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 401
|
If you think the Gop debates are negative and out there, wait till obama's billion dollar campaign goes after romney. It will be much more negative than anything thus far.
Decent amount of Mormon's in colorado.....
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
Feb 6, 2012, 3:45 PM
Post #59 of 206
(1391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 401
|
j_ung wrote: flesh wrote: If you think the Gop debates are negative and out there, wait till obama's billion dollar campaign goes after romney. It will be much more negative than anything thus far. Could be. Of the two, however, only Romney has a history of going super negative in a presidential campaign. Obama and McCain had the most civil presidential campaign I can remember. The again, with super PACs in the mix, who knows?
It's likely obama won't be able to run on his record and definately not his commitments, I think he must go negative to win. He can't run on hope this time and he now has an actual record that can be scrutinized.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Feb 6, 2012, 5:23 PM
Post #60 of 206
(1385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 14400
|
caughtinside wrote: I am curious... has Romneycare been successful/effective in Massachusetts? serious question.
From a guy who used to work on the MA House Ways and Means committee when Romneycare was enacted and later worked in finance for one of the top hospitals in Boston, the answer is yes, it has worked. It's a a lot more expensive than they thought it would be, but it has reduced the costs of healthcare, most notably because the prices that the uninsured pay are significantly higher than the prices the insured pay (not the hospital's fault, btw).
Oh yeah, the other thing Romney did was essentially kick that corrupt fuckwad Billy Bulger (that last name sound familiar? Ever the see the movie "The Departed?") out of the UMass President's office.
I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for. I thought Romney did a much better job as governor than people give him credit for, but I'm not sure I like him now that he's flipped to being more conservative due to his opportunistic nature. The thing is, I voted for Obama in 2008 and I don't think he's done what he could have done. When I'm not confident in an incumbent then I usually vote for the challenger, but again, I'm not sold on the "new" Romney.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Feb 6, 2012, 5:55 PM
Post #61 of 206
(1383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 14400
|
Also, he was really effective at keeping taxes low in MA. A few days after he got elected Gov, the Speaker (Finneran) called a meeting with us in HWM and said that Romney ran on a "no new taxes" campaign and had won, so we held the tax rate level. The political plan was to get him to sign off on universal healthcare because even back then everyone knew he was gunning for the Presidency.
It's funny to recall discovering that back then MA had the lowest tax rate of any state in the US that had an income tax. The MA tax rate ranked something like 44th or 45th, with the only ones lower were the states without an income tax and / or sales tax.
This came at a time when the leaders of the House in MA were fiscally conservative Democrats. A funny story was when Senate President Birmingham (D) came out of a meeting with House Speaker Finneran (D) and Gov Swift (R - predecessor to Romney and definitely not his biggest fan either. That's a story worth reading up on) and said "I swear I was the only Democrat in the room!"
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 6, 2012, 6:13 PM
Post #62 of 206
(1377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18043
|
flesh wrote: j_ung wrote: flesh wrote: If you think the Gop debates are negative and out there, wait till obama's billion dollar campaign goes after romney. It will be much more negative than anything thus far. Could be. Of the two, however, only Romney has a history of going super negative in a presidential campaign. Obama and McCain had the most civil presidential campaign I can remember. The again, with super PACs in the mix, who knows? It's likely obama won't be able to run on his record...
Obama has only killed Osama Bin Laden
Eliminated several other Al-Qaeda leaders
Ended the War in Iraq
Begun the drawdown of forces from Afghanistan
Overhauled the food safety system
Advanced women's rights in the work place
Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell in our military
Stopped defending DOMA in court.
Passed the Hate Crimes bill.
Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court.
Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can't afford it.
Expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty [and rescissions] in health insurance.
Invested in clean energy.
Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more consumer-friendly.
While Dodd-Frank bill was weak in many respects, it was still an extremely worthwhile start at re-regulating the financial sector.
He created a Elizabeth Warren's dream agency: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Not much of a record to run on, eh?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Feb 6, 2012, 9:09 PM
Post #63 of 206
(1365 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9676
|
curt wrote: flesh wrote: j_ung wrote: flesh wrote: If you think the Gop debates are negative and out there, wait till obama's billion dollar campaign goes after romney. It will be much more negative than anything thus far. Could be. Of the two, however, only Romney has a history of going super negative in a presidential campaign. Obama and McCain had the most civil presidential campaign I can remember. The again, with super PACs in the mix, who knows? It's likely obama won't be able to run on his record... Obama has only killed Osama Bin Laden Eliminated several other Al-Qaeda leaders Ended the War in Iraq Begun the drawdown of forces from Afghanistan Overhauled the food safety system Advanced women's rights in the work place Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell in our military Stopped defending DOMA in court. Passed the Hate Crimes bill. Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court. Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can't afford it. Expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty [and rescissions] in health insurance. Invested in clean energy. Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more consumer-friendly. While Dodd-Frank bill was weak in many respects, it was still an extremely worthwhile start at re-regulating the financial sector. He created a Elizabeth Warren's dream agency: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Not much of a record to run on, eh? Curt
Also helped saved the US automakers, and almost certainly prevented a much deeper recession/depression
Not bad for the midst of a recession, and with an obstructionist congress.
Honestly, though, he spent his first two years thinking he could reach across party lines and everyone would eventually see the value of working toward a consensus. Although there's no doubt that it cost him in terms of how much more he could have accomplished, it's his nature to try to bring people together, and I applaud him for trying his hardest.
The fact that the republican party took advantage of that "weakness", to the detriment of the country, is despicable. But who knows, maybe the republican congress was so busy fighting their own battles between old-guard and Tea-Partyers, that they were deadlocked themselves - and saying "no" to everything was all they could agree on.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 7, 2012, 8:09 AM
Post #64 of 206
(1332 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18681
|
curt wrote: flesh wrote: j_ung wrote: flesh wrote: If you think the Gop debates are negative and out there, wait till obama's billion dollar campaign goes after romney. It will be much more negative than anything thus far. Could be. Of the two, however, only Romney has a history of going super negative in a presidential campaign. Obama and McCain had the most civil presidential campaign I can remember. The again, with super PACs in the mix, who knows? It's likely obama won't be able to run on his record... Obama has only killed Osama Bin Laden Eliminated several other Al-Qaeda leaders Ended the War in Iraq Begun the drawdown of forces from Afghanistan Overhauled the food safety system Advanced women's rights in the work place Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell in our military Stopped defending DOMA in court. Passed the Hate Crimes bill. Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court. Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can't afford it. Expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty [and rescissions] in health insurance. Invested in clean energy. Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more consumer-friendly. While Dodd-Frank bill was weak in many respects, it was still an extremely worthwhile start at re-regulating the financial sector. He created a Elizabeth Warren's dream agency: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Not much of a record to run on, eh? Curt
That's pretty much what I was going to post, but without the list. Very few Republicans seem to get that Obama's record is his strength, not his weakness. The only real question remaining is this: does the economic recovery have legs? If it does, Romney's fucked.
On that note, how psyched are you to be rooting against the economy right now?
|
|
|
|
|
traddad
Feb 7, 2012, 8:32 AM
Post #65 of 206
(1321 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7125
|
j_ung wrote: On that note, how psyched are you to be rooting against the economy right now?
What's your bet that we see another round of brinksmanship on the debt limit, which will drive the economy back into the shitter? All the while the Republicans will be sobbing great sobs and blubbering that they had to do it to "save the country" from something or other.....then they'll screech that the nasty, nasty KenyanMuslimSocialist hasn't yet hoisted the economy up upon his broad shoulders and carried it to safety.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Feb 7, 2012, 10:38 AM
Post #66 of 206
(1294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
traddad wrote: j_ung wrote: On that note, how psyched are you to be rooting against the economy right now? What's your bet that we see another round of brinksmanship on the debt limit, which will drive the economy back into the shitter? All the while the Republicans will be sobbing great sobs and blubbering that they had to do it to "save the country" from something or other.....then they'll screech that the nasty, nasty KenyanMuslimSocialist hasn't yet hoisted the economy up upon his broad shoulders and carried it to safety.
"We had to destroy the country in order to save it," Romney sighed, glancing through the window at the bleak waste outside, ravaged by hordes of cannibal libertarians and dotted, here and there, with thunderdomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
Feb 7, 2012, 10:49 PM
Post #68 of 206
(1254 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 401
|
I agree he's done alot of great things. Honestly, I do.
The economy always comes back, the question is, could it have been faster? Is it back? That's another very tough question, if the gross sales of my company we're a predictor, I'd say definately not. I'm still down 80% from 06, and I'm much better at it, really, half the companies in my industry have gone bankrupt since around 08.
The LAST thing I want is for the economy to come back slowly.
Aside from the fact that we surely disagree on whether or not all the things he's done are good, let's look at it a different way.
What could you have done in the last year if you went into massive debt to do it? Bush took us into massive debt and Obama has accelerated it.
My list would go something like this:
1.5 million dollar home
ferrari 458 italia
massage every week
weekly paid home cleaning
half a dozen out of country vacations
Vacation home in france
pay off my gf's student loans
give my family members who work for me a raise
hire people to work for me that I don't need
full coverage health and dental instead of my catastrophic plan that's 58/month
It's easy to come up with an impressive list when you go into massive debt to make it happen.
I could afford all those things, if I didn't want to save/invest my money and was willing to take on huge debt that I can afford to make payments on.
Is it a good idea? lol
I am happy we got osama. I'm happy we've started to bring troops home and have plans in place to bring many more. I'm happy about what he did with the credit card companies. I could go on.
He's done a decent job, I just want the debt situation turned around and the economy at full roar. I don't want taxes raised on me.
For the last five years I've invested 20% of my income directly in growing existing companies or starting new ones, which creates jobs. In otherwords, 20% of my income, isn't mine, I never get to use it personally, it always goes to creating jobs. If you tax me too much, this won't happen, simply put.
In addition, another 20% of my income is invested in personal and commercial real estate, new construction, which also creates jobs.
I have four different savings accounts, when I get paid, 40% is immediately transferred to these accounts, it's never for me to use. You can't create jobs without capital, you at least need some skin in the game for every investment, whatever it is, in most cases. There's always exceptions.
That being said, if I had the opportunity to have an iron clad guarantee that the extra tax I paid would actually go towards paying the debt down, I would do it, for a term, like five years. I'd tighten the belt buckle a little, for my country and it's future.
In otherwords, if we first of all stop going into debt, and a tax hike was in place strictly being used to pay the existing debt down for a period of time with a plan, I'm for it. Since this isn't a reality anytime soon, we'll have to do it through attrition, but raising taxes will shrink revenue not grow it, long term.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Feb 8, 2012, 12:02 AM
Post #69 of 206
(1248 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17535
|
cracklover wrote: curt wrote: flesh wrote: j_ung wrote: flesh wrote: If you think the Gop debates are negative and out there, wait till obama's billion dollar campaign goes after romney. It will be much more negative than anything thus far. Could be. Of the two, however, only Romney has a history of going super negative in a presidential campaign. Obama and McCain had the most civil presidential campaign I can remember. The again, with super PACs in the mix, who knows? It's likely obama won't be able to run on his record... Obama has only killed Osama Bin Laden Eliminated several other Al-Qaeda leaders Ended the War in Iraq Begun the drawdown of forces from Afghanistan Overhauled the food safety system Advanced women's rights in the work place Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell in our military Stopped defending DOMA in court. Passed the Hate Crimes bill. Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court. Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can't afford it. Expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty [and rescissions] in health insurance. Invested in clean energy. Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more consumer-friendly. While Dodd-Frank bill was weak in many respects, it was still an extremely worthwhile start at re-regulating the financial sector. He created a Elizabeth Warren's dream agency: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Not much of a record to run on, eh? Curt Also helped saved the US automakers, and almost certainly prevented a much deeper recession/depression Not bad for the midst of a recession, and with an obstructionist congress. Honestly, though, he spent his first two years thinking he could reach across party lines and everyone would eventually see the value of working toward a consensus. Although there's no doubt that it cost him in terms of how much more he could have accomplished, it's his nature to try to bring people together, and I applaud him for trying his hardest. The fact that the republican party took advantage of that "weakness", to the detriment of the country, is despicable. But who knows, maybe the republican congress was so busy fighting their own battles between old-guard and Tea-Partyers, that they were deadlocked themselves - and saying "no" to everything was all they could agree on. GO
Nailed it!!!
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Feb 8, 2012, 7:55 AM
Post #70 of 206
(1227 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9676
|
Flesh - the main reason why the economy isn't taking off is because housing prices are still flat/sinking. That's really it.
There have been numerous studies that show that when real estate goes up, people "feel" richer, and this is the best known indicator for personal spending in the US. So until the housing market turns around, the recovery will continue to be anemic.
Pretty much everything else is in place. Of course if Europe collapses, we'll probably go down the drain with them. But fingers crossed that that won't happen.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Feb 8, 2012, 8:08 AM
Post #71 of 206
(1223 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9676
|
flesh wrote: If you think the Gop debates are negative and out there, wait till obama's billion dollar campaign goes after romney. It will be much more negative than anything thus far. Decent amount of Mormon's in colorado.....
I agree that there are a decent amount of Mormons in CO. And I think you're right that they could potentially swing the election in this very key battleground state in November.
However, yesterday's results show:
State Gingrich Paul Romney Santorum
CO 12.8% 11.8% 34.9% 40.2%
There is not an overwhelming groundswell among CO republicans towards Romney. Quite the contrary, in fact.
We'll see...
GO
|
|
|
|
|
flesh
Feb 8, 2012, 10:06 AM
Post #72 of 206
(1199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 401
|
cracklover wrote: flesh wrote: If you think the Gop debates are negative and out there, wait till obama's billion dollar campaign goes after romney. It will be much more negative than anything thus far. Decent amount of Mormon's in colorado..... I agree that there are a decent amount of Mormons in CO. And I think you're right that they could potentially swing the election in this very key battleground state in November. However, yesterday's results show: State Gingrich Paul Romney Santorum
CO 12.8% 11.8% 34.9% 40.2% There is not an overwhelming groundswell among CO republicans towards Romney. Quite the contrary, in fact. We'll see... GO
Yes, Santorum, he scares me, I'm one of the few who want everything cut, including the defense budget. I get the feeling Santorum will blow the whole world up, lol. If he was the nominee, I couldn't vote for him, unless I felt confident he wasn't going to increase the defense budget. WHich isn't the impression I'm getting to say the least.
Debates are key, the states yesterday didn't get to one. I'm very confident that had their been a debate in colorado before the vote, Romney would win handily. He's getting better, I'm confident Romney will be the nominee. He is still way ahead of anyone all things considered. Plus he has the money, with superpacs out their, this his huge.
You know I've been thinking about this whole Romney tax rate thing. He paid about 13.9% effectively if I recall correctly. Also, he contributed 16% to charities/tithing. If he didn't contribute 16% to charities, or 7 million in 2010/2011, his effective tax rate would have been at least a few points higher and the total tax paid would have been much greater. I hope people consider these things. If his effective rate we're 18% and he paid a couple million more in taxes each year, it might not have surprised people as much.
Speaking of surprise, have you guys asked your business owner friends what their effective tax rates are?
2011 was 14% for me and 2010 was 12% 2009 was about 8% because I had losses carried over from the previous year, happy 2008.
Personally, I don't know ANY business owner who pays over 20%, effectively, many of them very successful. It's been this way for a very long time.
Consider some of these basic deductions I take each year.
-Personal mortgage interest/property taxes
-my car is company car, company gas, oil changes, tires, car insurance, etc
-company cell phone
-company pays health insurance (58/month)
-any time I take or buy an employee lunch/dinner
-contributions to my SEP-IRA (up to 25% of my income, capped around 50k/year)
-depreciation on commercial property (about 40-50k per 1 million in commercial value)
-charitable contributions (local privately funded school for hadicapped children)
There's others as well, just ask my accountant, lol
My father's been in business since the 80's, he's never paid over 20% effectively.
Now consider if taxes we're raised on me, 4%. Effectively, my total tax liability would grow much more than 4%. Assuming I have the same deductions year to year, raising taxes on me 4% would raise my effective tax rate last year from 12% tto about 15%. This means thousands of dollars less for me to invest with/leverage with.
If you forced me to pay 30% no matter what deductions I had, I would find a way, for sure I would have significantly less money to invest and leverage. It was getting the impression this is what Obama wanted to do in his state of the union. I definately would have to wait many years if not a decade to start my climbing gym, if my effective rate was 30%.
I can only cut so many costs. To get more capital, I just built a house designed with the purpose of having a renter in the basement.
I suggest instead of demonizing the business owners, you become one instead.
|
|
|
|
|
traddad
Feb 8, 2012, 11:22 AM
Post #73 of 206
(1189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7125
|
flesh wrote: I couldn't vote for him, unless I felt confident he wasn't going to increase the defense budget. WHich isn't the impression I'm getting to say the least.
You wouldn't vote for him because he wouldn't cut the defense budget?
Jeebus, that's the LEAST of my worries. I wouldn't vote for him because he's a sanctimonious, homophobic, misogynous, gun humping, bible thumping theocrat with delusions of adequacy. He is one sick little man who must have gotten one too many atomic wedgies when he ran the AV club in high school. Now he wants payback and he's enlisted the "Lord".
(This post was edited by traddad on Feb 8, 2012, 11:58 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 8, 2012, 11:25 AM
Post #74 of 206
(1188 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18681
|
flesh wrote: I agree he's done alot of great things. Honestly, I do. The economy always comes back, the question is, could it have been faster? Is it back? That's another very tough question, if the gross sales of my company we're a predictor, I'd say definately not. I'm still down 80% from 06, and I'm much better at it, really, half the companies in my industry have gone bankrupt since around 08. The LAST thing I want is for the economy to come back slowly. Aside from the fact that we surely disagree on whether or not all the things he's done are good, let's look at it a different way. What could you have done in the last year if you went into massive debt to do it? Bush took us into massive debt and Obama has accelerated it. My list would go something like this: 1.5 million dollar home ferrari 458 italia massage every week weekly paid home cleaning half a dozen out of country vacations Vacation home in france pay off my gf's student loans give my family members who work for me a raise hire people to work for me that I don't need full coverage health and dental instead of my catastrophic plan that's 58/month It's easy to come up with an impressive list when you go into massive debt to make it happen. I could afford all those things, if I didn't want to save/invest my money and was willing to take on huge debt that I can afford to make payments on. Is it a good idea? lol I am happy we got osama. I'm happy we've started to bring troops home and have plans in place to bring many more. I'm happy about what he did with the credit card companies. I could go on. He's done a decent job, I just want the debt situation turned around and the economy at full roar. I don't want taxes raised on me. For the last five years I've invested 20% of my income directly in growing existing companies or starting new ones, which creates jobs. In otherwords, 20% of my income, isn't mine, I never get to use it personally, it always goes to creating jobs. If you tax me too much, this won't happen, simply put. In addition, another 20% of my income is invested in personal and commercial real estate, new construction, which also creates jobs. I have four different savings accounts, when I get paid, 40% is immediately transferred to these accounts, it's never for me to use. You can't create jobs without capital, you at least need some skin in the game for every investment, whatever it is, in most cases. There's always exceptions. That being said, if I had the opportunity to have an iron clad guarantee that the extra tax I paid would actually go towards paying the debt down, I would do it, for a term, like five years. I'd tighten the belt buckle a little, for my country and it's future. In otherwords, if we first of all stop going into debt, and a tax hike was in place strictly being used to pay the existing debt down for a period of time with a plan, I'm for it. Since this isn't a reality anytime soon, we'll have to do it through attrition, but raising taxes will shrink revenue not grow it, long term.
Well posted, thanks.
Honestly, though, I don't think the national debt is the magic bullet the GOP seems to think it is, either. Once we start looking at how much Obama-enacted policies contributed to the debt vs. how much Bush-enacted policies continued to contribute to it, the numbers appear to be different than the GOP narrative would have us believe.
Again, I really think Obama's problems are of the public perception variety, rather than the he-did-us-wrong variety. Will he have the money and team smarts necessary to overcome it? Who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 8, 2012, 11:26 AM
Post #75 of 206
(1185 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18681
|
Yeah, that's quite a hitch in Romney's giddyup, so to speak. I have to say, I'm pretty surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
