I just want to make sure I understand this correctly, make sure I haven't missed anything, so if I'm wrong, I want the liberals here to correct me.

Liberals are upset about Romney's low effective tax rate for the 2 years' of returns he released. And they are really upset about what his tax rate may have been in prior years, because the thought it that if he won't release those records, he must therefore be hiding something, correct?

OK...

So, when did liberals establish this conviction over taxes? I don't remember liberals being this concerned when Obama nominated Tim Geithner to be Treasury Secretary. The guy who now runs the Treasury, didn't want to pay "his fair share", and wouldn't pay "his fair share" until he was forced to do so by the IRS. I never heard liberals express any concern over this.

So, from where do liberals get the nerve to hold Romney's feet to the fire? Is the IRS saying they had tax disputes with Romney, like they did with Geithner? Is there one shred of evidence to suggest that Romney broke any laws?

This is what liberals do. Instead of debating the merits of Romney's ideas (which liberals will do almost anything to avoid), they must demonize him. Instead of trying to convice us why we shouldn't be concerned that every liberal state in the nation is on the verge of bankruptcy, liberals are more concerned that Romney is "out of touch" because his wife wears a $900 shirt. (Yet, for some reason, those same liberals don't care that Michelle Obama wore a $6800 jacket recently.)

Once again, liberals show that they have zero shame, and that their hypocrisy knows no bounds...

Not sure what the liberals think but I sure don't have any issue with a $900 shirt. In fact I might even own one :hihi:

The current to-do is over why Romney won't release his most current returns, which some suspect may show a zero tax burden due to a combination of offshore tax shelters and heavy claimed losses during the recession.

-spence

You should stay off those radical cons. sites b/c the issue hasn't been with the low % of taxes (which is no differant from Buffets), it is what is in the tax returns he refuses to release.

Hypocrisy is complaining about the Dems walking out of a vote while refusing to admit that the Repubs. have done the same thing.

Once again you have demonstrated that your hypocrisy no bounds.

Well they very well couldn't make it about his birth certificate now, could they?

Not sure what the liberals think but I sure don't have any issue with a $900 shirt. In fact I might even own one :hihi:

The current to-do is over why Romney won't release his most current returns, which some suspect may show a zero tax burden due to a combination of offshore tax shelters and heavy claimed losses during the recession.

-spence

Inuendo- some,suspect and may. :hihi:
Maybe he doesn't want to show up Biden with Joe's paltry $350 charity deduction.:huh:

Well they very well couldn't make it about his birth certificate now, could they?
Romney's father is Mexican. Rumor has it Mitt (aka Mittcarlos) was carried across the border after a gun fight in a Tijuana brothel.

No seriously, I really read that.

-spence

Well they very well couldn't make it about his birth certificate now, could they?

That's a good point. If I may respond...

The "birthers" were constantly insulted and denigrated by liberals (not without reason, IMHO). So how is this (assuming Romney is hiding something) any different?

For a while, Obama refused to release his long-form birth certificate. That led some (not me) to believe that he was hiding something. Those who thought he was hiding something, were attacked non-stop as being conspiracy kooks, and liars.

I dobn't see how the Romney tax thing is any different. Do you, Dad?

Inuendo- some,suspect and may. :hihi:
Maybe he doesn't want to show up Biden with Joe's paltry $350 charity deduction.:huh:
Given he's loaded and a Mormon I'm sure his charitable deduction is massive if he's allowed to report his giving to his church.

But showing a zero liability for even a year would be incredibly embarrassing and fit the Dems message perfectly...that the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

At least his horrible overseas trip overshadowed the tax issue for a while and we didn't have to hear about them.

I don't see how the Romney tax thing is any different. Do you, Dad?

No, I don't....hence my comment.

Just the sad state of Politics as usual....

Given he's loaded and a Mormon I'm sure his charitable deduction is massive if he's allowed to report his giving to his church.

But showing a zero liability for even a year would be incredibly embarrassing and fit the Dems message perfectly...that the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

Church is a legitmate deduction open to everyone including Joe.

Joe is a typical Lib, spend other perople's money on the poor and
get his hand stuck in his pocket when it comes to his cash. :)

It has been shown over and over that conservatives are more charitable
in giving $ than the Libs.

It is differnt b/c he claims he didn't work for Bain for a # of years yet his name was on forms filed w/the SEC. Did he earn and/or report income for those years?

This issue is going to be around until the election or until he releases the returns. He prob. thought about running for pres. say 4 -6 years ago, he should have fixed any potential issues then and could have released returns for those years.

Not sure what the liberals think but I sure don't have any issue with a $900 shirt. In fact I might even own one :hihi:

The current to-do is over why Romney won't release his most current returns, which some suspect may show a zero tax burden due to a combination of offshore tax shelters and heavy claimed losses during the recession.

-spence

"Not sure what the liberals think..."

I bet you're "not sure", because you always claim ignorance about situations where liberals put their feet in their mouths...so since you are not sure, allow me to enlighten you...the media (especially MSNBC) made a big deal over Ann Romney's $900 shirt, suggesting it was evidence that the Romneys have nothing in common with the middle class.

I recall that Palin was similarly criticized. So it's OK, I guess, for liberal women to wear expensive clothes, but conservative women, I guess, should shop where they belong, at Goodwill.

"The current to-do is over why Romney won't release his most current returns, which some suspect may show a zero tax burden "

OK. There was a previous to-do which was similar. I'll use your words, and change them to reflect the previous to-do...

"The current previous to-do is over why Romney Obama won't release his most current returns, long form birth certificate which some suspect may show a zero tax burden that he wasn't born here. "

Spence, how was the birthers' suspicion of Obama, any less valid than Harry Reid's suspicion of Romney?

Romney is flatly denying the charge. So there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that he paid zero taxes.

And if he did pay zero taxes, it was obviously within the law, since the IRS isn't after him. If liberals don';t like those laws that provide tax shelters, why the hell didn't they change those laws when they controlled the executive and legislative branches for two years? What was stopping them from changing those laws? Nothing. SO the only conclusion is that Democrats don't want those laws changed, which means they have no right to attack those who abide by those laws.

Game. Set. Match.

Church is a legitmate deduction open to everyone including Joe.

It has been shown over and over that conservatives are more charitable
in giving $ than the Libs.

He certainly should have given more (esp. being a politician).

I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? I know a large % of my annual donations are given to my church.

My church just built a new hall and is building a new gym. Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? I might drop my gym membership to go there to work out.


Edit - I'm not refering to all church donations since churches and various religious groups obviously give many $ to various organizations.

But showing a zero liability for even a year would be incredibly embarrassing and fit the Dems message perfectly...that the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

But why is that the Democrat message? Don't rich Democrats play by those same rules? How come it's OK for rich liberals to take advantage of those rules, but it's sinister when rich conservatives do it?

Romney is rich, so he must be out of touch? John Kerry is worth 10 times what Romney is worth, and I don't remember his wealth being a liability for him when he ran?

It's just like the issue of gay marriage. According to you Spence, blacks aren't guilty of hate when they oppose gay marriage. But whites who oppose gay marriage, are a bunch of bigoted hatemongers. That's what you said, and it's indefensible, unbelievably stupid.

I saw Nancy Pelosi recently, criticizing WI governor Scott Brown for busting unions and therefore, hurting the middle class. Mrs Pelosi owns a bunch of hotels, and refuses to allow her employees to unionize. So it's OK for her to recognize that her business is better off without unions, but the people of WI are not allowed to come to the same conclusion? But no one calls her out on it.

He certainly should have given more (esp. being a politician).

I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? I know a large % of my annual donations are given to my church.

My church just built a new hall and is building a new gym. Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? I might drop my gym membership to go there to work out.

"I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? "

Your edit (that not all churches are self-serving) nulifies the entire point of your post. I have never seen any data to suggest that even though conservatives give more $ to charity, a lasrge percentage of that money benefits only the people that made the donations. You are graspiong at straws...

'Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? "

Then don't deduct that donation from your taxable income. You're not forced to do that...

Church is a legitmate deduction open to everyone including Joe.

Joe is a typical Lib, spend other perople's money on the poor and
get his hand stuck in his pocket when it comes to his cash. :)

.

Darn right. I just saw a fundraising speech where Biden claimed that Democrats care about helping the poor, and that Republicans only care about helping the rich.

This, coming from a guy who makes $300k, and gives less than 1% to charity? He gets to wag his finger at me, and instead of getting pelted with tomatoes like he deserves, he gets a standing ovation? If everyone acted like Biden, how much worse off would poor people be?

I don't get it, maybe PaulS an Spence can explain it.

"I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? "

Your edit (that not all churches are self-serving) that is not what I said. I said that there are aspects of church charity I support - just not my being allowed to take a tax deduction for our gym that you wouldn't be able use.nulifies the entire point of your post. I have never seen any data to suggest that even though conservatives give more $ to charity, a lasrge percentage of that money benefits only the people that made the donations. You are graspiong at straws...Nope, my example proves it.

'Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? "

Then don't deduct that donation from your taxable income. You're not forced to do that..Is that how the country should be run now? What if someone doesn't want to support the war? That is why Romney's % of taxes paid isn't the issue. He should take everything he is allowed to take on his returns..

Darn right. I just saw a fundraising speech where Biden claimed that Democrats care about helping the poor, and that Republicans only care about helping the rich.

This, coming from a guy who makes $300k, and gives less than 1% to charity? He gets to wag his finger at me, and instead of getting pelted with tomatoesYour a violent person! Remember when I mentioned throwing bricks as someone and you accussed me of some silly thing like promoting violence - isn't your saying throwing tom. showing hypocrisy? like he deserves, he gets a standing ovation? If everyone acted like Biden, how much worse off would poor people be?

I don't get it, maybe PaulS an Spence can explain it.

I already said he should have donated more. What more do you want?

Given he's loaded and a Mormon
-spence

why not pick on Harry Reid....he is a Mormon

why not pick on Harry Reid....he is a Mormon

Because it's OK to be Mormon, or fabulously rich, or opposed to gay marriage, or a tax cheat, or to treat women barbarically, as long as you are a Democrat.

Democrats who fall into those categories are no threat to anyone. Republicans who fall into those categories are the enemy...that's why Chick fil-A isn't welcome in Boston, but businesses owned by blacks who oppose gay marriage, are welcome. Because as Spence said, blacks who oppose gay marriage are simply exercising their rights to free speech. But whites who oppose gay marriage are to be feared and shunned from the public square.

Since Reid believes in transparency for Mitt... he and Polosi feel that they R excluded from the same...Pelosi n Reid both have been asked to disclose their finances and they both have refused...it is known that they in congress do not have to...but what R they hiding

He certainly should have given more (esp. being a politician).

I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? I know a large % of my annual donations are given to my church.

My church just built a new hall and is building a new gym. Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? I might drop my gym membership to go there to work out.


Edit - I'm not refering to all church donations since churches and various religious groups obviously give many $ to various organizations.


Paul, you don't have to take the deduction if you feel it's not warranted.

I belong to a small suburban church that feeds over 1000 people in the
inner city/month through our food pantry, provides shelter with member over night chaparoning, a home cooked dinner and a lunch sandwich for the homeless.
In addition our members have a yearly donation walk for Habitat and work building the houses. No gym needed here and I feel those works alone along with the many other things we do is a legitamite deduction.
Having been involved in these programs, working in the inner city, and mentoring kids for over 20 years, I feel that not enough is being done for many and too much
for the freeloaders. I am sure the local church, synagog etc. do a lot more good than
Big G just throwing $$$ into the fan.

the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

Define Rich.........

I agree Romney is rich but where is the rich/not rich line drawn?

If it were not for the rich those of us poor people would not have a job.....:)

Justplugit - those are all great acts of charity. My church also does some things I'm proud off to support the sick and less fortunate in my community.

My statement just refers to the fact that my donation to fufill my building fund pledge is treated no different that a donation I might make to the church to help fund our monthly meal at the local shelter. The only difference is that Lhea the church sec. applies the money to my building fund pledge - the IRS doesn't treat it differently. You and Jim aren't going to be able to use the gym or weight room while to some degree you helped build it.

Justplugit - those are all great acts of charity. My church also does some things I'm proud off to support the sick and less fortunate in my community.

My statement just refers to the fact that my donation to fufill my building fund pledge is treated no different that a donation I might make to the church to help fund our monthly meal at the local shelter. The only difference is that Lhea the church sec. applies the money to my building fund pledge - the IRS doesn't treat it differently. You and Jim aren't going to be able to use the gym or weight room while to some degree you helped build it.

I hear you, and I don't disagree that there is a difference between donations used to feed the hungry, and donations used to build a sauna in your church's gym. But I don't think it's a huge deal, and I'd bet everything I have, that what yuo describe is not the reason consrevatives donate more than liberals. You implied that "self-serving" donations might be the reason that conservatives seem to give more, yet you offered no evidence other than to say that there is such a thing as a self-serving donation. That doesn't negate the studies that show that conservatives dobnate more.

It has also been shown that a larger percentage of charity dollars get to those that need it, rather than gubmint dollars. Governemnt programs are almost always inefficient, and often corrupt. That's a big reason why conservatives want to emphasize more charitable giving, and less government spending. For that, we get accused of not caring about poor people. It's ridiculous.

If it were not for the rich those of us poor people would not have a job.....:)

No, those rich bosses are taking advantage of you (unless you are in a union, that is). You're just too feeble-minded to realize that, which is precisely why we need Obama and the Democrats and labor unions, making sure those awful rich people treat you fairly. Because it's not like we have OSHA protecting workers, or minimum wage laws, or laws that dictate hours worked, overtime, family medical leave, etc...

Oh wait, we do already have all those things.

Just release the frigging things....
Seriously, it has to be more than 'he paid 14%'... if thats all it is, it will blow over.... As mentioned, it is not that he is rich. As far as my income, Obama is rich... it has to do with the system benefiting those that can afford to move money offshore and take 'losses' to avoid paying... is it illegal? Nope...

if he really did pay close to nothing b/c of shelters, losses and such, then it must be a calculated risk to take this heat vs what he would take....

I bet you're "not sure", because you always claim ignorance about situations where liberals put their feet in their mouths...so since you are not sure, allow me to enlighten you...the media (especially MSNBC) made a big deal over Ann Romney's $900 shirt, suggesting it was evidence that the Romneys have nothing in common with the middle class.
I read a lot of news so to have not seen something isn't claiming ignorance, it means the story might not have had much of a life. Looking online it looks like a remark made months ago, by a single person and not carried elsewhere aside from the manufactured outrage.

Really? Like who cares...

I recall that Palin was similarly criticized. So it's OK, I guess, for liberal women to wear expensive clothes, but conservative women, I guess, should shop where they belong, at Goodwill.
Palin was criticized because the RNC spend $150,000.00 in CAMPAIGN MONEY on clothing for her. Big difference.

Spence, how was the birthers' suspicion of Obama, any less valid than Harry Reid's suspicion of Romney?
Completely different situations.

Obama produced a perfectly legal birth certificate long ago, although I'm not sure he was even required to unless Congress was to challenge his citizenship.

Romney has produced nothing although he's not required by law either. It's certainly fair to question what he's hiding.

Ultimately these issues both come down to simple politics. What's good for the goose apparently is good for the gander :hihi:

Game. Set. Match.

I think you meant to yell "Fore!" to the adjacent fairway. :bshake:

I read a lot of news so to have not seen something isn't claiming ignorance, it means the story might not have had much of a life. Looking online it looks like a remark made months ago, by a single person and not carried elsewhere aside from the manufactured outrage.

Really? Like who cares...


Palin was criticized because the RNC spend $150,000.00 in CAMPAIGN MONEY on clothing for her. Big difference.


Completely different situations.

Obama produced a perfectly legal birth certificate long ago, although I'm not sure he was even required to unless Congress was to challenge his citizenship.

Romney has produced nothing although he's not required by law either. It's certainly fair to question what he's hiding.

Ultimately these issues both come down to simple politics. What's good for the goose apparently is good for the gander :hihi:



I think you meant to yell "Fore!" to the adjacent fairway. :bshake:
"Really? Like who cares..."

Spence, you already know this, but you're pretending you don't...it's not just the dress. Throughout the campaign, the liberals have desperately tried to paint Romney as out of touch with regular Americans, because of his wealth. Do you deny that? If you admit it's happening, where was this concern when John Kerry ran?

"Obama produced a perfectly legal birth certificate long ago"

True, but not the long form, which put the issue to rest. Why did he wait so long, why did it take the idiot Trump to finally get Obama to disclose it?

I also notice you chose not to address the fact that Obama chose as Treasury Secretary, a guy who irrefutably tried to dodge his taxes. So if someone who actively tried to avoid his taxes can be Treasury Secretary, why can't someone who seemingly obeyed all laws, and never ran afoul of the IRS, run for President?

There's way more evidence to suggest that Geithner is a tax cheat, yet libs didn't utter a peep. All of a sudden, it's imperitive to show that everyone is paying "his fair share", which in the deranged world of liberalism, somehow means paying more than the law requires you to pay.

Those laws setting up tax shelters survived two years of liberal control of the legislative and executive branch. If your party didn't feel those laws were worth changing, by what logic can you fault Romney for obeying those laws? Your party had absolute authority to change those laws, and chose not to. Why is that, exactly?

That's what I meant when I said game-set-match, and you know that, yet you dodged that entire issue

I admit the comparison to the birthers is a bit of a stretch...however, my other point is irrefutable, and that is this...if Romney paid taxes according to laws that Obama and team chose to leave in place, how do you blame Romney for that? Do you really expect people to pay more than what the IRS says they owe?

That doesn't negate the studies that show that conservatives dobnate more.


Have those studies been adjusted for the vastly different demographics (age, race, income level, etc.)?

Have those studies been adjusted for the vastly different demographics (age, race, income level, etc.)?

Studies I've read indicate the % of people who donate is similar regardless of politics and that conservatives may contribute more per person on average.

A big factor could be church contributions (I'm assuming more conservatives go to church) which may not really all be charitable if the primary intent is to fund the church you attend. And yes, I'm aware churches do other good things for the community.

Another problem could be how the data is really analyzed. The Brooks report that's widely cited looked at taxes by voting at the state level. There's a huge amount of potential variation here and if population concentrations aren't taken into consideration could be terribly flawed.

But Jim thinks it's settled science so I guess we should just move on.

-spence

Have those studies been adjusted for the vastly different demographics (age, race, income level, etc.)?

The data has not been "adjusted" for those things, but the definitive study on the subject (called "Who Really Cares") indicates that liberals give less, despite the fact thet liberals earn more. And that makes sense, if you consider that liberalism is huge on both coasts, and the conservative strongholds include middle America and some rural places.

Why would you adjust the data for race? Are you saying skin color is correlated with generosity? Boy, that'll go over well in liberal circles...

Studies I've read indicate the % of people who donate is similar regardless of politics.

A big factor could be church contributions (I'm assuming more conservatives go to church) which may not really all be charitable if the primary intent is to fund the church you attend. And yes, I'm aware churches do other good things for the community.

Another problem could be how the data is really analyzed. The Brooks report that's widely cited looked at taxes by voting at the state level. There's a huge amount of potential variation here and if population concentrations aren't taken into consideration could be terribly flawed.

-spence

"Studies I've read indicate the % of people who donate is similar regardless of politics."

(1) I'm sure that's true, given the liberal slant of your worldview, and your inability to accept that which makes conservatives look decent. When you get your data from The Daily Worker and The Huffington Post, you won't see articles suggesting that conservatives donate more...

(2) even if the same percentages donate, who donates more? Isn't that relevent?

(3) given that liberals are constantly suggesting that they care more about the poor than conservatives do, how is it that your studies do not show that a higher percentage of liberals donate to charity?

"A big factor could be church contributions...which may not really all be charitable"

Spence, I am shocked, yes shocked to hear you speculate (with no supporting data whatsoever) a theory which makes the conservatives look less generous.

"if population concentrations aren't taken into consideration could be terribly flawed."

Could be, could be, could be, could be...It "could be" that all conservatives are devil-worshipping cannibals. After all, I can't prove otherwise...

bolz spinning top - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhEp72u3Sfo)

No, those rich bosses are taking advantage of you (unless you are in a union, that is). You're just too feeble-minded to realize that, which is precisely why we need Obama and the Democrats and labor unions, making sure those awful rich people treat you fairly. Because it's not like we have OSHA protecting workers, or minimum wage laws, or laws that dictate hours worked, overtime, family medical leave, etc...

Oh wait, we do already have all those things.

ILMAO

But Jim thinks it's settled science so I guess we should just move on.

-spence

Spence, I never said "let's move on". What I have said is this...given the available data, it is preposterous for liberals to claim they care more about poor people than conservatives do. Liberals only make such rhetorical, inflammatory statements, when they know thay cannot debate the merits of whatever conversation is taking place. It's a conversation-stopper, like accusing someone of racism...

COnservatives could just as easily (more easily, given the data) claim that liberals don't care about poor people. But that's not one of the pillars of conservatism, whereas you can't watch MSNBC for 3 minutes without some liberal jerk claiming that liberals have a monopoly on caring about the poor.

I'm sorry your side keeps behaving so horribly, but don't make up for it by putting stupid words in my mouth.

This is such a tangent to the original thread....

Jim:
So, you have NO problem with Romney not releasing his taxes at all? You don't care in the least bit?

If nothing else, I'm curious what it costs to maintain and train a Dressage horse....

Harry Reid should come forward with his accusations....anyone of us cn make an accusation of anyone here....who should have to prove it... the attacker or attackee?

Reid is using basically the same tactic that got obama elected to the Illinois senate in 2004

If nothing else, I'm curious what it costs to maintain and train a Dressage horse....

Jim, your right, I shouldn't have included race.

RI - Good thing it wasn't Theresa Heinz w/the horse.

I'd be curious if they ever did a study on Money Donated versus Time Donated....some people don't donate funds but put many hours in on Charities.

Just curious if that gets taken into consideration.

I'd be curious if they ever did a study on Money Donated versus Time Donated....some people don't donate funds but put many hours in on Charities.

Just curious if that gets taken into consideration.
Or like my wife who earned 3-4X less than she easily could because she was dedicated to helping families with autistic kids most of whom were dirt poor?

-spence

Spence, I never said "let's move on". What I have said is this...given the available data, it is preposterous for liberals to claim they care more about poor people than conservatives do. Liberals only make such rhetorical, inflammatory statements, when they know thay cannot debate the merits of whatever conversation is taking place. It's a conversation-stopper, like accusing someone of racism...

COnservatives could just as easily (more easily, given the data) claim that liberals don't care about poor people. But that's not one of the pillars of conservatism, whereas you can't watch MSNBC for 3 minutes without some liberal jerk claiming that liberals have a monopoly on caring about the poor.

I'm sorry your side keeps behaving so horribly, but don't make up for it by putting stupid words in my mouth.
This isn't rocket science.

Democrats typically place more value on the ability of government to bring strength of the collective. This may be as simple as belief in Federal college loans and grants to help educate our children to build a strong economy.

Yes, there are a lot of moving parts when you really analyze it, but some assertion you can't prove doesn't invalidate it.

-spence

"Really? Like who cares..."

Spence, you already know this, but you're pretending you don't...it's not just the dress. Throughout the campaign, the liberals have desperately tried to paint Romney as out of touch with regular Americans, because of his wealth. Do you deny that? If you admit it's happening, where was this concern when John Kerry ran


Or Kennedy and Roosevelt and so on.

Did having money interfere with their election or Presidency? I don't think so as
we were united as Americans.
This $$ thing is just another perpetrated divider between rich and poor.
This administration has highly perfected the game of division.
They are dividers not uniters and imho we need to bring this country together
if we will ever be able to solve our mega problems.

Or Kennedy and Roosevelt and so on.

Did having money interfere with their election or Presidency? I don't think so as
we were united as Americans.
This $$ thing is just another perpetrated divider between rich and poor.
This administration has highly perfected the game of division.
They are dividers not uniters and imho we need to bring this country together
if we will ever be able to solve our mega problems.
You mean like Cheney who claimed that Obama might bring about another attack?

There's plenty of division on both sides, but look to the late 1990s House for some inspiration.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There was certainly a fair amount of critical comments regarding Geithner's taxes when it came up from people from both sides of the fence. The issue with Mitt is that people would like to know what tax advantages, especially off shore tax havens, he took advantage of. If he is legit it is not a problem being wealthy
Ike Kerry. It is ironic to me that Mitt"s father was the candidate who initiated multiple year tax disclosure and he is turning this into a bigger issue than it should be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is such a tangent to the original thread....

Jim:
So, you have NO problem with Romney not releasing his taxes at all? You don't care in the least bit?

It hadn't occured to me till I was told by Obama's team that I should care. Since there has been no claim by IRS that he owes money that hasn't been paid, there was no reason for me to be curious. I, generally, don't find tax returns to be entertaining or even interesting, unless they reveal skullduggery. That's between Romney and the IRS. If the IRS has no problem with his returns, I have no interest in them. I understand that Romney is rich. I don't need to pore through boring tax returns to find that out. I don't mind that he is rich. He has returned and given more to our society in so many ways including taxes and charities than I, or the vast majority of Americans. He has earned his wealth, he didn't inherit it, not that inheriting it would be a bad thing. For whatever reason, I don't get worked up over what rich people pay in taxes. I realize, as Fitzgerald said, the rich are different than you or I. Just doesn't bother me. I get pissed at what the government takes from me, and even more pissed at how it spends, or redistributes it.

If nothing else, I'm curious what it costs to maintain and train a Dressage horse....

Probably less than the cost to treat Anne Romney's MS for which the horse is used to help with the disease. The Romney's donated about $20,000 to the U.S. Equestrian Team Foundation.

Do you need to see Romney's tax return to find out how much it costs to maintain and train a dressage horse?

The issue with Mitt is that people would like to know what tax advantages, especially off shore tax havens, he took advantage of.

Why is that an issue and who's making it an issue? Mitt isn't making it an issue. He's filed his returns, and the IRS has accepted them, with, apparently, no accusations of wrongdoing. That "people would like to know" (really, which people and how did they come to be interested?) is no reason for him, or you, or I to disclose our returns in order to satisfy their curiosity. Oh, because he's running for President? OK, somehow, you think that finding out what tax advantages he's taken advantage of will impact how he will fulfill his responsibilities as President. My opinion, if he is adept at following IRS rules, that might be some small indication that he would be adept as President, especially with tax issues. Maybe that will enable him to relate to the rest of us not liking to be overburdened with taxes. I would be more suspicious of someone who sees no problem with high tax rates to sustain an irresponsible, and profligate government which spends more that it gets and won't even pass a budget.

If he is legit it is not a problem being wealthy
Ike Kerry.

Apparently, the IRS has not questioned his legitimacy.

It is ironic to me that Mitt"s father was the candidate who initiated multiple year tax disclosure and he is turning this into a bigger issue than it should be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why am I getting the vibe that the Obama team is turning this into an issue, not Romney?

This isn't rocket science.

Yes, rocket science has to operate under certain laws and certainties established over time and through testing and experience, and their effect on the natural world. Politics as practiced today, especially progressive politics, is quite different. Established laws based on human nature as observed, tested, and experienced over time are discarded for untried theories, wishes, and whims.

Democrats typically place more value on the ability of government to bring strength of the collective.

Yes, given the record of time and experience, history is replete with examples of the collective strength backed by government as an oppressive power against individual freedom, and a sapping of individual strength

This may be as simple as belief in Federal college loans and grants to help educate our children to build a strong economy.

History and experience has shown that Federal college loans have fueled the rise in their price. And that collectivism over individualism eventually tends to create stagnating economies with bloated governments that weaken economies rather than building vibrant ones.

Yes, there are a lot of moving parts when you really analyze it, but some assertion you can't prove doesn't invalidate it.

-spence

Whatever.

Probably less than the cost to treat Anne Romney's MS for which the horse is used to help with the disease.

I am very familiar with MS in my family... no one was prescribed 'Dressage' as a treatment.....


He has earned his wealth, he didn't inherit it, not that inheriting it would be a bad thing. For whatever reason, I don't get worked up over what rich people pay in taxes. I realize, as Fitzgerald said, the rich are different than you or I. Just doesn't bother me. I get pissed at what the government takes from me, and even more pissed at how it spends, or redistributes it.

So you get pissed at what the gov't take from you, but not if the top 1% get to skirt the same taxes by moving money offshore, or taking 'losses'?

Are you sure he didn't inherit his wealth? He certainly made a lot more for himself, no denying that.... but he didn't start out dirt poor, or even middle class.....
To paraphrase that awful Trump Roast on Comedy central... "after college he put his nose to the grindstone, worked hard, and borrowed (inherited) X Millions from his father...."

You mean like Cheney who claimed that Obama might bring about another attack?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was his opinion, not starting a class warfare.
Remember how Obama pledged to bring us all together, it was a big
part of all his other failed campaighn promises.

That was his opinion, not starting a class warfare.
Bull$hit...It was part of a calculated effort to paint Democrats as weak by personally exploiting 9/11.

Class warfare has been around and will be around forever.

-spence

It's a shame he's been such a pussy with Al Queda.....

I'd be curious if they ever did a study on Money Donated versus Time Donated....some people don't donate funds but put many hours in on Charities.

Just curious if that gets taken into consideration.

That's a great point, but let me say 2things...

(1) liberals had more money than conservatives, which makes perfect sense, when you consider the liberal strongholds like Hollywood and Manhattan...

(2) the "who really cares" study did not, I don't think, look at time donated. But they did look at who donates more blood, and it was conservatives.

But you raise a valid point, not everyone has extra cash...

This is such a tangent to the original thread....

Jim:
So, you have NO problem with Romney not releasing his taxes at all? You don't care in the least bit?

If nothing else, I'm curious what it costs to maintain and train a Dressage horse....

A fair question...I would not release any additional tax returns, because even if they show he paid taxes, liberals will use his income as a club against him. They did it to McCain, and they've been doing it to Romney all along.

It's OK for Brad Pitt to be rich, but not Mitt Romney. Try telling me liberals don't feel that way...

Romney cannot win in this arena, so he should just say "the IRS has never come aftre me, unlike Tim Geithner, so I'm clean. My income is no one's business, all you nee dto know is I obeyed all laws, and I donated a hell of a lot more to charity than that cheapskate Joe Biden".

This isn't rocket science.

Democrats typically place more value on the ability of government to bring strength of the collective. This may be as simple as belief in Federal college loans and grants to help educate our children to build a strong economy.

Yes, there are a lot of moving parts when you really analyze it, but some assertion you can't prove doesn't invalidate it.

-spence

I can prove that liberals think that conservatives don't care about the poor (they say that all the time). And I can prove that theory is bullsh*t. That's all I was trying to prove, and it's easy to prove. Everything else you say is a pathetic attempt to cloud that reality.

.
This $$ thing is just another perpetrated divider between rich and poor.
.


Right, and it's being perpetrated by Obama and Biden, 2 guys who are rich. Did I miss something? When Obama vacations at the Vineyard, does he stay at a campground or a youth hostel?

Where does he get off implying he's not wealthy, and how gullable are the liberals who jump on board?

The easiest thing in politics is to tell a bunch of disgruntled idiots that nothing bad that heppens is "their own" fault. Rather, they got screwed by that "other" guy. And if you can paint that "other" guy as rich and white, so much the better.

ONE PERSONS WEALTH DOES NOT CAUSE ANOTHER PERSONS POVERTY.

To believe in liberal economics, you must disagree with that statement.

A mental disorder.

It's a shame he's been such a pussy with Al Queda.....

I have always given him high marks in that area. It's also worth noting that in this area, most of what he has done us continue the policies of the previous administration (Gitmo is open, war tribunals still happen, drone attack sstill happen, the Patriot Act is still in place). These are all things Bush got attacked for, now Obama is happily using them to score political points with folks like you. Ironic, isn't it?

I am very familiar with MS in my family... no one was prescribed 'Dressage' as a treatment.....


Are you saying that it doesn't help Mrs. Romney with her MS? Rich folks can afford more costly treatments for their ailments than the rest of us. Isn't that one of the reasons to be rich? Is your solution to this supposed "problem" that we should by government fiat remove the advantages of being rich? What overall effect do you think that would have on our society? Rather than being jealous of and punitive against the rich, I prefer to focus on my own well being and what I can do to improve it, if necessary.

So you get pissed at what the gov't take from you, but not if the top 1% get to skirt the same taxes by moving money offshore, or taking 'losses'?

That's correct. I like the idea of loopholes to evade taxes. I wish I had more myself. Kudos to those who take advantage of them. I admire what Romney has done with his life. There are those who come from better circumstances that waste what was given to them, and those who come from lesser circumstances that have climbed to better. I admire the character not the wealth or poverty. It is that character, in my opinion, not taxes, that make a nation, or society, "great." I understand that government needs money to operate. But it should operate with the consent of the governed, not in opposition to it. It should govern within the pasrameters prescribed, in our case, of the Constitution, not in any which way it chooses. And it should function with the minimum amount of taxation required to do so, not by taking the lion's share of the nation's wealth.

Are you sure he didn't inherit his wealth? He certainly made a lot more for himself, no denying that.... but he didn't start out dirt poor, or even middle class.....

I didn't say that he didn't inherit something. I said he didn't inherit his wealth. He was already wealthy before his father died. And what he was given as an advantage of birth was not the great wealth that he earned, but what was given he took advantage of, as do all of us who start with whatever our family gives us, to become who he is and acquire what wealth he has. He didn't waste whatever advantages he had from birth, he used them to productive ends that have been a plus to our economy, and his character are a plus to the moral fiber, as it is, of our society.

To paraphrase that awful Trump Roast on Comedy central... "after college he put his nose to the grindstone, worked hard, and borrowed (inherited) X Millions from his father...."

Of what money he actually borrowed, which was not millions, did he pay it back? What he actually inherited from his father's will he donated to Brigham Young U. He was already rich by then, and didn't need the money. But he did put that inheritance to a good use to help others. His father helped with college expenses and buying his first house. I have helped my son with a great deal of his college expenses as well as catholic school expenses including a select high school, which were not cheap. So do most middle class, and even some poorer, families.

I notice you like to take some of your political opinions from comedy shows. I guess that's OK, for entertainment. Just sayin.

Of what money he actually borrowed, which was not millions, did he pay it back? What he actually inherited from his father's will he donated to Brigham Young U. He was already rich by then, and didn't need the money. But he did put that inheritance to a good use to help others. His father helped with college expenses and buying his first house. I have helped my son with a great deal of his college expenses as well as catholic school expenses including a select high school, which were not cheap. So do most middle class, and even some poorer, families.

I notice you like to take you political opinions from comedy shows. I guess that's OK, for entertainment. Just sayin.

Spence isn't saying that horseback riding doesn't help her MS...what Spence is saying, because Obama has told him to say it, is that the horseback riding makes Romney one of "them".

The rich.

The enemy.

The one that has caused all of our problems.

The one who isn't paying his fair share (as if the millions he pays in taxes, and the millions he gives to charity, and the jobs he creates, are not enough!)

This, from the Obama who said he, and only he, could descend from the heavens and unite us all. Now it's "us" versus "them".

The irony is that the folks that Obama is attacking (rich businessmen, for the most part), are the ones who do so much for the rest of us. They lower the tax burden for the rest of us, they pay taxes for things like public schools that they will never use, they give big $$ to charity, and they create jobs. Those bastards!

To believe Obama, one must be willing to believe that if we could just tweak! tax rates, just a bit, on the billionaires, that all of our problems would be solved. That's ridiculous, just like just about everything else on the liberal ideological platform.

I saw Obama last night talking about CEO pay compared to the middle class. Waah, waah, waah. Does Obama think that Steven Spielberg's butler makes as much money as Spielberg does? How about Barbara Streisand's gardener, how much does he make?

So if the CEO of Goldman Sachs pays entry-level bankers less than he makes, that's exploitative. When Will Smith pays his nanny less than he makes, that's something else I guess, maybe Spence can explain the difference...

Bull$hit...It was part of a calculated effort to paint Democrats as weak by personally exploiting 9/11.

Class warfare has been around and will be around forever.

-spence



Class WARFARE has not always been around in America.

Human nature has always been around and ENVIOUS, but that is a far cry from the diviseve class WARFARE we have seen over the past few years.

If we are honest, we both know that the warfare is being propagated by politicians
to get votes.
United we stand, divided we fall.

Class warfare has been around and will be around forever.

-spence


Spence, you say class warfare has been around forever. Even if I agree with that (which I do not), didn't Obama run on "hope and change"? So why can he defend his horrible tactics by saying "everyone else does it".

Sorry. If his entire 2008 campaign was based on some vague notion called "change", he cannot then say he's only hitting below the belt "because everyone does it". He was supposed to be different, right? Or am I remembering the 2008 campaign incorrectly?

Throughout the campaign, the liberals have desperately tried to paint Romney as out of touch with regular Americans, because of his wealth. Do you deny that? If you admit it's happening, where was this concern when John Kerry ran?



Again, the hypocrisy. Kennedy had mega bucks from his father who got them
from questionable sources.
In addition Jacquelin set the style for the day with her expensive clothes
and was an avid horeswoman that owned many horses.

While there was talk of Joe Kennedy's $ sources, I never remember any class
warfare over John's money or criticism about his wife's expensive clothes
or horses.

Found this laying round my hard drive...


The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)


This is the data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%



*Data covers calendar year 2003, not fiscal year 2003
- and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security

Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.



The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.



As far as Romney sheltering any income, that is his right. He didn't lie about it. You can do it too, and you WOULD do it if you earned that kind of money. For example, the US government has triple tax free bonds you can buy, you can even by them in a fund so even regular people can play the game.


The fact is Obama has pissed away more money and done less with what he spent than just about all the presidents combined. Frankly I think Romney is far more fiscally responsible that obama, but don't expect free hand outs and checks just sent to people to stimulate the economy. Who in turn run to Walmart and buy something made in china. What an idiot he was with that program.

The fact is Obama has pissed away more money and done less with what he spent than just about all the presidents combined. .

Very true, and somethiing that in a fair world, would result in Obama getting clobbered in November. No one has ever spent that kind of dough with nothing to show for it. And he's probably going to get re-elected. I don't get it. He spent a ton of money, has very little to show for it, and he's a lying, vindictive, race-baiting jerk on top of all that.

Matt Damon recently said he was disappointed in Obama's performance. Every other president lets that go. Not Obama. Obama had to say somethiing like "hey Matt, I saw your new movie, and I was disappointed in your performance too". That's presidential?

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.


.

Tax increases for the rich to pay down our debt is bunk.

It's estimated the increased taxes would bring in $80-$90 Billion, chump change when it comes to a $16 Trilion debt.
If it were put to the debt, like they claim it would ;), how would that create jobs and improve the economy?
Cutting their taxes would put more money into the economy, creating jobs and increased revenue. Use the increased revenue to pay down the debt.

Cutting all Govt programs by 10% ,prolly all waste anyway, is the way to go.
I can hear it now, "we can't cut entitlement programs, what will people do?"
Tighten their belt just like families do when less money is coming in.
We are broke. Libs have great intentions but lead with their emotions instead of their heads.
Again, we are broke. Our Gross national product is 1 Trillion less than our debt.

Cutting their taxes would put more money into the economy creating jobs and increased revenue. Use the increased revenue to pay down the debt.
That's certainly the conventional wisdom isn't it?

If it were true you'd think we'd see it more consistently. In the real world though there are a lot more factors that influence the economic cycles than just capital.

Wealth continues to concentrate and companies are sitting on trillions in cash. Put simply, if access to wealth was sure to drive revenue you'd think the economy should be cranking right now.

-spence

Spence,
in the real world we are Broke!
In the real world the Govt can't provde evertbody with what they want.
In the real world you have to work for what you want.

Spence,
in the real world we are Broke!
In the real world the Govt can't provde evertbody with what they want.
In the real world you have to work for what you want.
There's a good argument for some restraint, I'll give you that.

But lowering taxes isn't going to fix the economy. The wealthy have plenty of money and they're not investing in job growth...because crushing household debt is still leaving consumers without any power to purchase.

Romney's solution for this appears to be to make the problem worse. Give the wealthy more money and raise taxes on everyone else.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html

Seems sort of backwards doesn't it?

I'd wager that the effective tax rate will have little to do with the economic recovery which will follow it's own cycle.

-spence

Agree about the cycle, but taxing and Govt. spending will never speed
the cycle up.

Agree about the cycle, but taxing and Govt. spending will never speed
the cycle up.

No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence as well as the massive amount of debt service.

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs. While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed and weakens the consumer base and shifts burden to the States.

Increasing revenues via taxation doesn't magically fix the problem, but combined with modest cuts can have a meaningful impact that's short-term.

Right now I don't think it's reasonable nor necessary to have a perfect end game solution. We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction.

-spence

The more you impose taxes on those that earn big money, the more they will seek ways to shelter it.

The government should be creating incentives for investments in this country but they want the rich to risk it all then tax them when it works out. Well, if they risk it in areas that need investment, they need to be allowed to KEEP the earnings tax free for a significant period.


The government just creates roadblocks for business, they believe profits are a sin and anyone who makes profits are bad people and should be punished (taxed)

As sited abouve, taxing the so called rich will not solve anything, in fact it will not help anything. I do agree however that many wall street types are in a position to move all earned income to unearned income or take it as stock or some other form and pay a lot less tax and defer paying on most of it. This is within the law but if they had a very simple tax plan (ie a flat tax) no one could escape paying their fair share and there would be no deductions or shelters.

No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence as well as the massive amount of debt service.

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs. While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed and weakens the consumer base and shifts burden to the States.

Increasing revenues via taxation doesn't magically fix the problem, but combined with modest cuts can have a meaningful impact that's short-term.

Right now I don't think it's reasonable nor necessary to have a perfect end game solution. We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction.

-spence

'No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence..."

Obama not only doubts that, he denies it.

"While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed "

Spence, if government (feds and local) would loosen the noose around our necks, confidence would grow (as you said), so businesses would take some of that money and grow, and hire many displaced federal employees. The fedweral government was not designed to be a jobs program.

"We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction."

Well, Obama's idea of "the right direction" seems to be to double-down on failed, expensive ideas. He has added to the debt, failed to curtail unemployment, and done exactly nothing to address entitlement programs (except to demonize those who propose ideas). Spence, how is that "moving the ball in the right direction"?

Well, Obama's idea of "the right direction" seems to be to double-down on failed, expensive ideas. He has added to the debt, failed to curtail unemployment, and done exactly nothing to address entitlement programs (except to demonize those who propose ideas). Spence, how is that "moving the ball in the right direction"?

if you understand the progressives you realize that for them, this is moving the ball in the right direction:uhuh: everything you mentioned results in greater dependence on government....it's a wife-beater mentality really:) don't worry...it hurts them more than it hurts you...honestly

I think they call it the "new normal"

if you understand the progressives you realize that for them, this is moving the ball in the right direction:uhuh: everything you mentioned results in greater dependence on government....it's a wife-beater mentality really:) don't worry...it hurts them more than it hurts you...honestly
Yes, it's all part of the final solution.

-spence

Yes, it's all part of the final solution.

-spence

you have to admit...it's a hell of a lot easier to find takers for your newly create healthcare bureaucracy/benefits if they don't have jobs and if businesses are struggling with costs....along with all of your other expanding bureaucracies :uhuh:

....along with all of your other expanding bureaucracies :uhuh:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/business/economy/government-is-getting-smaller-in-the-us-off-the-charts.html?_r=1

Government Getting Smaller in the U.S.
By FLOYD NORRIS
Published: May 4, 2012

FOR the first time in 40 years, the government sector of the American economy has shrunk during the first three years of a presidential administration.

:huh:

-spence

if you understand the progressives you realize that for them, this is moving the ball in the right direction:uhuh: everything you mentioned results in greater dependence on government....it's a wife-beater mentality really:) don't worry...it hurts them more than it hurts you...honestly

I think they call it the "new normal"

An article on growing dependence on government:Harsanyi: Dependency nation (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/13/dependency-nation/)

the federal bureaucracy, it's reach, regulations, dependants and employees has grown and will continue to...state and local losses account for the "reduction' you point to....

"By many measures, the federal government has indeed grown during Obama's tenure. Spending as a share of the economy has gone up. The number of federal employees has risen. More Americans are relying on federal assistance.

Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

The federal government has been one of the few areas that's grown during the economic downturn. The private sector remains down 1.1 million jobs from the start of 2009, while state and local governments have shed 635,000 positions."

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm)


"But while state and local jobs evaporated, Labor Department statistics show that the federal government , not counting the postal service, has grown by 143,000 employees during Obama’s tenure.

Looking solely at the increase in non-postal-service federal employees during Obama’s tenure, the president has overseen a 5.1 percent increase in size of the federal workforce."

Government Job Loss: President Obama’s Catch 22 - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/government-jobs-loss-president-obamas-catch-22/)



and I don't know how much credit you want or should claim for your hero when it comes to reductions in state and local

Plan to cut 15 percent of state workforce sails through committee

Posted by: Baird Helgeson
January 19, 2011 -

Reigniting tensions between Republicans legislators and public employees, a House committee on Wednesday approved a proposal to reduce the state’s workforce by 15 percent.

“This proposal is about more than balancing the budget. It is about balancing government,” said the bill’s author, state Rep. Keith Downey, R-Edina. “For too long, state government has relied on one-time measures and looked the other way to foreboding fiscal crisis. Our state can no longer afford the status quo, and our citizens deserve better.”

Democrats blasted the measure as a ham-handed effort to cut state workers without ushering in any reform to make government work better. They called it “economic suicide” in a struggling economy to eliminate 5,000 workers.


http://www.startribune.com/politics/114219459.html

An article on growing dependence on government:Harsanyi: Dependency nation (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/13/dependency-nation/)

life of Juia was a great flick

“The Life of Julia,” an ode to an imaginary woman who lived her entire life benefiting from government dependency and other people’s money rather than individual initiative and hard work.

Americans, the administration’s case goes, should be able to enjoy housing aid, student loan forgiveness, food stamps, free birth control, government retirement plans, universal internet service, medical insurance, and that’s just for starters.

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs.

-spence

Not to worry, they can all get jobs in the new booming "Green Economy." :)