THE RACE: Obama and Romney fight over...

THE RACE: Obama and Romney fight over budget goals

There are 24 comments on the www.sacbee.com story from May 21, 2012, titled THE RACE: Obama and Romney fight over budget goals. In it, www.sacbee.com reports that:

The presidential race is shaping up as a battle between Republican calls for more government austerity and Democratic appeals for more spending to promote jobs and growth with tax hikes on high-income earners. It mirrors a fight raging in Europe.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.sacbee.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Robert

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#1 May 21, 2012
The Romney guy, he does not really want to be president does he????

He must not if he thinks we want to reduce our public debt and cut programs like social security which are important to us but at the same time promise increases to the Pentagon which will prompt even more cuts elsewhere.

Just how important does he think throwing money at a war we don't want to be in is to us???? Like I say he must not want to be president.
Eleanor

Vernon Hills, IL

#2 May 21, 2012
<pssst Democrats>>>> Government spending does NOT INCREASE jobs. Government spending just increases government DEBT.

<debt for todays generation and tomorrow and on and on and on>

NO MORE DEBT!!!!
Greg

Germany

#3 May 21, 2012
Eleanor wrote:
<pssst Democrats>>>> Government spending does NOT INCREASE jobs. Government spending just increases government DEBT.
<debt for todays generation and tomorrow and on and on and on>
NO MORE DEBT!!!!
end the wars especially in Afghanian, making cuts in war spending and spending in foreign ,aid,, and taking about civilian development of country, it will make jobs. And the only candidate, who wants to make these proper changes in Ron Paul.And he should be president. There are no big diiferences between Romney and Obama.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#4 May 21, 2012
Eleanor wrote:
<pssst Democrats>>>> Government spending does NOT INCREASE jobs. Government spending just increases government DEBT.
<debt for todays generation and tomorrow and on and on and on>
NO MORE DEBT!!!!
Wrong Eleanore.

Ask my uncles who worked at the CCC before WWII. They all sent home (government money) to help the folks, and they got 3 squares and a hot before going to Europe, all-expenses paid. They saw France, Belgium, and Germany.
Robert

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#5 May 21, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong Eleanore.
Ask my uncles who worked at the CCC before WWII. They all sent home (government money) to help the folks, and they got 3 squares and a hot before going to Europe, all-expenses paid. They saw France, Belgium, and Germany.
It is ok to increase debt if your going to pay for it but to pass off 40 cents of every dollar you spend to another generation means you are morally bankrupt. And it does not matter if your intentions are evil (think republicans running amok with military nation building) or well intended (think democrats spending on Obamacare or loans for the less fortunate) or corrupt (think politicians bailing out corporations).

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#6 May 21, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
It is ok to increase debt if your going to pay for it but to pass off 40 cents of every dollar you spend to another generation means you are morally bankrupt. And it does not matter if your intentions are evil (think republicans running amok with military nation building) or well intended (think democrats spending on Obamacare or loans for the less fortunate) or corrupt (think politicians bailing out corporations).
True. We must restore a more progressive tax.
tard

Charlottesville, VA

#7 May 21, 2012
Two full blown idiots, GOD this country is sick

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#8 May 21, 2012
tard wrote:
Two full blown idiots, GOD this country is sick
YOUR PARENTS ARE BLAMELESS for YOU
Halito

Winnemucca, NV

#9 May 21, 2012
The Internal reverend is everywhere....like an onion.....how many layers?
john darwin II

Carol Stream, IL

#10 May 21, 2012
Halito wrote:
The Internal reverend is everywhere....like an onion.....how many layers?
layers? endlessy! welcom2globallcommie;-000h, go get a bud n drink untilt U is hangover and hav sex witt da roboothy;-00
john darwin II

Carol Stream, IL

#11 May 21, 2012
tard wrote:
Two full blown idiots, GOD this country is sick
U maybie never enjoy musick in 50"s;) Americancercells

“Proud To Be An American”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#12 May 21, 2012
Greg wrote:
<quoted text>
end the wars especially in Afghanian, making cuts in war spending and spending in foreign ,aid,, and taking about civilian development of country, it will make jobs. And the only candidate, who wants to make these proper changes in Ron Paul.And he should be president. There are no big diiferences between Romney and Obama.
Attention greg!!! Perhaps ron paul should have been president during WWII? Perhaps he could have made your suggested cuts in war spending giving japan and nazi germany a leg up to piss on the world? In other words greg, if we do not put a dent in the ways of evil in the middle east today what we'll see in the future is anything but what japan and germany are today...Capice? Or GFY

“Proud To Be An American”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#13 May 21, 2012
the lord marshal b. h. obama is to business what a farting gasbag is to a restaurant.
Robert

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#14 May 22, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
True. We must restore a more progressive tax.
No you don't start spending then later worry or let someone else worry about raising the money to pay for it. The first principal you stick to is stay within your budget. That way your currency remains sound and you don't buy things you can not pay for.

More progressive?????? What is fair, you tell me. Even Mr. Bill would be shocked if he were to see just how punishing the taxes would be to support the government we have and will have in the future. But go ahead what is fair and also what would it have to be to pay for what we have?

Let me give you a guide, the US Constitution does not think much of your progressive tax, it recognized the need for uniformity and equal protection to all citizens.“[A]ll duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

In other words, the principle behind the progressive income tax—the more you earn, the larger the percentage of tax you must pay—would have been appalling to the founders. They recognized that, in James Madison’s words,

“the spirit of party and faction” would prevail if Congress could tax one group of citizens and confer the benefits on another group."

Do you think the people who founded this country were stupid, they saw Mr Bill coming, always willing to vote to spend someone else s money. The above quote could not be more accurate of our political situation today if Madison was a baby boomer.

Did you even know that the progressive or as you want the more progressive tax is unconstitutional. Congress tried to implement it on a couple of occasions and it was rejected by the court. Stephen Field, a veteran of 30 years on the Court, was outraged that Congress would pass a bill to tax a small voting bloc and exempt the larger group of voters. At age 77, Field not only repudiated Congress’s actions, he also penned a prophecy. A small progressive tax, he predicted,

“will be but the stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich.”

Yet another 100 + year old prediction of what is happening today and nothing good will come from it.

Not to be separated from the monies they sought congress passed a constitutional amendment to remove the pesky constitution our of the way and brought back the progressive tax with a maximum rate of 7%.

It took less than a generation to fulfill Field's prediction, Under Roosevelt, the top rate was again raised—first to 79 percent and later to 90 percent. In 1941, in fact, Roosevelt proposed a 99.5 percent marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000.“Why not?” he said when an adviser questioned him.

After that proposal failed, Roosevelt issued an executive order to tax all income over $25,000 at the astonishing rate of 100 percent. Congress later repealed the order, but still allowed top incomes to be taxed at a marginal rate of 90 percent.

There is a history of what happens when the raise the rates to be
'more progressive" like you wish and the results are not what you think.

There will be no winners in this because people like you will clamor for more and more until one day the mathematics of it all will overtake us. Then your precious less fortunate will suffer far more than they do now.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#15 May 22, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
No you don't start spending then later worry or let someone else worry about raising the money to pay for it. The first principal you stick to is stay within your budget. That way your currency remains sound and you don't buy things you can not pay for.
More progressive?????? What is fair, you tell me. Even Mr. Bill would be shocked if he were to see just how punishing the taxes would be to support the government we have and will have in the future. But go ahead what is fair and also what would it have to be to pay for what we have?
Let me give you a guide, the US Constitution does not think much of your progressive tax, it recognized the need for uniformity and equal protection to all citizens.“[A]ll duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
In other words, the principle behind the progressive income tax—the more you earn, the larger the percentage of tax you must pay—would have been appalling to the founders. They recognized that, in James Madison’s words,
“the spirit of party and faction” would prevail if Congress could tax one group of citizens and confer the benefits on another group."
Do you think the people who founded this country were stupid, they saw Mr Bill coming, always willing to vote to spend someone else s money. The above quote could not be more accurate of our political situation today if Madison was a baby boomer.
Did you even know that the progressive or as you want the more progressive tax is unconstitutional. Congress tried to implement it on a couple of occasions and it was rejected by the court. Stephen Field, a veteran of 30 years on the Court, was outraged that Congress would pass a bill to tax a small voting bloc and exempt the larger group of voters. At age 77, Field not only repudiated Congress’s actions, he also penned a prophecy. A small progressive tax, he predicted,
“will be but the stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich.”
Yet another 100 + year old prediction of what is happening today and nothing good will come from it.
Not to be separated from the monies they sought congress passed a constitutional amendment to remove the pesky constitution our of the way and brought back the progressive tax with a maximum rate of 7%.
It took less than a generation to fulfill Field's prediction, Under Roosevelt, the top rate was again raised—first to 79 percent and later to 90 percent. In 1941, in fact, Roosevelt proposed a 99.5 percent marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000.“Why not?” he said when an adviser questioned him.
After that proposal failed, Roosevelt issued an executive order to tax all income over $25,000 at the astonishing rate of 100 percent. Congress later repealed the order, but still allowed top incomes to be taxed at a marginal rate of 90 percent.
There is a history of what happens when the raise the rates to be
'more progressive" like you wish and the results are not what you think.
There will be no winners in this because people like you will clamor for more and more until one day the mathematics of it all will overtake us. Then your precious less fortunate will suffer far more than they do now.
Not later, now.
And on the very rich, who are the only Americans left with money to pay off our debt.

Remember, the poor and middle class did not economically ruin this country. The CEO class, and their puppet-masters did.

And Tell your "cur spending" message to the House GOP, who want to throw money, above the budget or military requests; at the Pentagon to fund projects in their home districts.
Robert

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#16 May 23, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Not later, now.
And on the very rich, who are the only Americans left with money to pay off our debt
Ok lets think about that a minute, after all the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, so how about the rich coming up with more. They need to pay their fair share.

We just finished spending 1.56 trillion dollars more than we took in for the year. Do the math, there are 4,359,936 filers who make over $200,000, that means on average each one has to come up with $357,803 if the rich are going to pay this bill. And that is on top of what they have already paid.

The over $200,000 crowd made a combined $2.462 trillion, combine what they have already paid in taxes ($531 billion) with the short fall $1.56 trillion, you get a tax bill for them of 2.031 Trillion.

You would be increasing their tax burden by a whopping 382%. I don't think they would have the capacity of paying that.

I won't get into the unintended consequences of a tax increase like that or the fact that the deficit burden will be going up every year for the next 70 years to pay for unfunded social spending or the fact that that does not touch the 15 trillion we are in the hole for.

Simply put we can not tax our way out of this.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#17 May 23, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok lets think about that a minute, after all the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, so how about the rich coming up with more. They need to pay their fair share.
We just finished spending 1.56 trillion dollars more than we took in for the year. Do the math, there are 4,359,936 filers who make over $200,000, that means on average each one has to come up with $357,803 if the rich are going to pay this bill. And that is on top of what they have already paid.
The over $200,000 crowd made a combined $2.462 trillion, combine what they have already paid in taxes ($531 billion) with the short fall $1.56 trillion, you get a tax bill for them of 2.031 Trillion.
You would be increasing their tax burden by a whopping 382%. I don't think they would have the capacity of paying that.
I won't get into the unintended consequences of a tax increase like that or the fact that the deficit burden will be going up every year for the next 70 years to pay for unfunded social spending or the fact that that does not touch the 15 trillion we are in the hole for.
Simply put we can not tax our way out of this.
You conveniently have forgotten that we ran a surplus until Newt & his GOP Congess "contract with America" along with the Bush administration squandered it. The "spending" you mention is still due to Bush's proliferance of unfunded spending, and failure to regulate fiscal affairs.
A tax increase on the wealthy will, simply, have no "unintended consequences."

Yes, we must cut spending too.
I advocate limiting Federal spending in each state to the percentage of funds that same state pays into the US Treasury each year.

This would eliminate all the phony make work-welfare programs run by Congress to fatten thei districts at the Federal trough.

With a tax elimination on the wealthy removed; and Federal Congressional boondoggle make-work in the "welfare states" eliminated; and the military cut back to commensurate with their reduced role in Nation Building.

Then, we let the dust settle, and tax and cut some more.

star

Charlottesville, VA

#18 May 23, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
YOUR PARENTS ARE BLAMELESS for YOU
Your wife wants to leave you because i give her more pleasure
Robert

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#19 May 23, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
You conveniently have forgotten that we ran a surplus until Newt & his GOP Congess "contract with America" along with the Bush administration squandered it. The "spending" you mention is still due to Bush's proliferance of unfunded spending, and failure to regulate fiscal affairs.
A tax increase on the wealthy will, simply, have no "unintended consequences."
Yes, we must cut spending too.
I advocate limiting Federal spending in each state to the percentage of funds that same state pays into the US Treasury each year.
This would eliminate all the phony make work-welfare programs run by Congress to fatten thei districts at the Federal trough.
With a tax elimination on the wealthy removed; and Federal Congressional boondoggle make-work in the "welfare states" eliminated; and the military cut back to commensurate with their reduced role in Nation Building.
Then, we let the dust settle, and tax and cut some more.
I did not forget and lest you do during the surplus years the budget was about 1.7 trillion dollars and we had a tech bubble helping the economy. Obama's submitted 2012 budget was 3.7 trillion, last year the budget was 3.8 trillion. A tax increase will not have the same effect.

Bad times are comming mr bill
brad

Manchester, CT

#20 May 23, 2012
What a frickin joke our Government has become.
Two proven failed policies,two proven failed parties.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

John Boehner Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Obama wins trade victory in the Senate (May '15) 21 hr Wall Street bonus 16
News House GOP leaders reach budget deal with Obama ... (Oct '15) Thu Fleas 26
News Poll: Job approval for Congress at record low (Aug '11) Thu Fleas 108
News Trump's wall reversal will cost GOP in future t... Apr 26 The light 1
News Republican leaders struggle to find votes to up... (Oct '15) Apr 24 Retribution 15
News Paul Ryan's fire drill: Bid to revive ObamaCare... Apr 19 Death on 2 Legs 6
News Republicans pick Ryan for speaker; House passes... (Oct '15) Apr 13 Stomach Cancer 40
More from around the web