With just 50 days left until the election,Team Romney is shaking up tactics by offering up a few more specifics on policies. Here's a list of stories shaping tonight's rundown.
- Inside the campaign: How Mitt Romney stumbled
- Romney aide concedes campaign has been short on specifics
- As many as 100 arrested at Occupy protest on one-year anniversary
- WSJ op-ed: The magnitude of the mess we're in
- Auto industry in middle of U.S.-China trade conflict
- Newsweek cover 'Muslim Rage' cover story creates a stir
- Latino gender gap: Latina voters prefer Obama by 53 point margin
- Rick Santorum tells audience that 'smart people' will never be on his side
Leave a Comment:
If you are going to read anything in this post topic, click on and read #4, WSJ op ed: "The magnitude of the mess we are in."
Your only risk is that you just might have your eyes opened to what the stakes of this election, Presidential, Senatorial and Congressional are.
Mr Longey,
Why do people always talk about if we raise taxes on the upper income folks, it would not balance the budget, or even reduce the debt? It's my undertanding, and I'm sure you will correct me, but it's not the purpose of the tax increases. But, the purpose is to help pay for the investments that would put people back to work, by fixing our infrastructure, so more construction workers go to work, and more supplies are needed helping many small businesses. Once this begins, the economic engine "heats up", and more revenues are generated to help reduce the debt..The tax increase, BY ITSELF, is not to be able to eliminate the debt, but rather to help pay for the things we as a Country need to grow our economy. This increase in revenue can assist State Governments to help put police, fireman, teachers, and the like back to work, also increasing tax revenue..
So, please, tell me where I'm wrong..
I'd be glad to show you where you go astray with your argument, Brad.
First if all the vaunted millionaires/billionaires tax, even if it did not drive those individuals into more tax sheltering tactics, would only raise and estimated $4.7 billion a year in new tax revenue, or about the amount that our Federal Government spends in one to two days at its current spending rate of $3.67 Trillion a year, some $1.2 Trillion of that borrowed money. I't sure sounds good to say that is paying one's fair share, but the top 1% of tax payers already mske ue 38% of the tax revenues in this nation, and nearly 50% of individuals and families with earned income pay 0%, ziltch, nada, nothing at all. But the millionaire's tax/billionaires tax is what most Senate Democrats, such as Chuck Shumer of NY or Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, for example are calling for instead of Obama's tax increases on those earning over $200,000 a year, or $250,000 a year for a husband and wife filing jointly which happens to include many professionals (doctors/dentists/psychiatrists/psychologists/funeral home owners in single practice and/or business men and women (15% of all small businesses) who file their income taxes as "S" corporations.
And when your remove the money thru higher taxes from the latter group, (professionals and small businesses), you remove their ability to expand their practices or businesses, hire employees, pay fair wages and benefits. When you remove the money from the investor class of capitalists that make up the millionaires and billionaires, you remove the money available to purchase new stock offerings, new bond offerings of established and expanding corporations, or the investment capital that go into start up small businesses (now at their lowest level since the 1970s) in direct loans to entrepreneurs. Also, this is the group that purchase a large amount of our domestic federal, state, and municipal debt, in the form of bonds and notes, and especially the bonding of the state and municipal and utility districts that pays for improvements and building of new infrastructure. And they are the group that especially finance with their inveetmente new commercial and residential subdivision real estate developments.
To take the money out of our private sector, to redirect it after siphoning off large amounts for overhead of our many federal agency programs and to support the payments and salaries of the legions of bureaucrats is wasteful, as anyone who has knowledge of the GSA and IG studies of inefficiencies, graft, fraud, and corruption built into the federal government will show you. And to allow the government to confiscate that money so that they can pick the winners and losers of who and where those surviving funds go to after big government's siphoning off the cream for its own purposes, leads to political power that they just should not have if we are to remain a free peoples operating our businesses, industries, and professions in a free market capitalist society, which has been our strength since our founding, ever since the early Pilgrims first efforts at communism/socialism ended in near famine and death.
As to the myth of hiring firemen, police, and school teachers with that money, you will find that the number of dollars spent for the frills in the education systems, such as the excessive number of "assistant principles for diversity" and the teachers for a myriad number of bilingual programs of instruction,nd the like is where that money usually ends up as channeled by the US Department of Education. Examine the striking unions of Chicago now, for example. A ratio of 1 education employee for every 15 students, but they claim to have teachers with classes of up to 45 people. Something is obviously wrong with those numbers. And there are no empty firehouses or police precincts in our nations cities either. Need a new fire truck or police cruiser in Oshkosh, Wisconsin? Raise the local taxes to pay for it there if the people want to pay it, don't pay for it from taking more money from the physician or the restaurant owner in Belloxi, Mississippi by way of the federal government's IRS and US Treasury as doled out by bureaucrats in HUD offices, for example. Want a new bridge over the Mill River in Western Massachusetts on Route 9? Raise a bridge maintenance and building bond in the state of Massachusetts, don't take it from the dentist or the small auto franchise dealer and repair shop in Yakima, Washington by way of the IRS and US Treasury and spent by the bureaucrats of the Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C.
Jack Kennedy cut taxes drastically, and jump started the 60s from the holdover of big taxes big govenment of the Depression and World War II-Korea era; Ronald Reagan cut taxes in the early 80s, and jump started the 80s employment miracles from the disaster of the 1970s. And Barrack Obama looked at those histories, and decided that the FDR route was the way he wanted to go; Big Govenment deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would say. And so far its all been been an abject failure, which he just can not admit to himself, as was seen in his infamous GAFFE last Spring when he delivered that answer in an off the cuff unskripted new conference (his last?) in April, when he said: "The private sector is doing fine, it's the public sector employment that needs support"! Clueless!
But glad to oblige, Brad. And there is more from where that came from, if you need more!
Regarding Romney's poor reception among Latinos, I do find it amazing that someone whose own father was born in Mexico, where his grandfather had taken refuge to escape U.S. laws on polygamy, would take such inhospitable positions against undocumented workers from Mexico who seek refuge in the U.S. from their own country's poor economic situation. Guess that's the definition of an opportunist.
Being born abroad of US citizen parents does not make one an illegal immigrant (or in your tortured euphemism, an "undocumented worker", rblessing. And the sins of the grandfather do not fall to the son or grandson, of course. Mitt Romney was born of Mormon parents in a monogamous marriage in the State of Michigan, and has a Mormon wife in a stellar loving monogamous marriage, fool! But your attempting to equate those factors as you do in your bigoted argument does make you out to be an opportunist, that is perfectly clear.