next »

[sly fox]

"Clyde, right turn" - Clint Eastwood

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-09-05/Romney-My-10-point-plan-to-create-American-jobs/50265720/1

Romney: My plan to turn around the U.S. economy

Barack Obama has had his turn at fixing the American economy. Millions of unemployed Americans can judge by their own experiences what he has done and failed to do.

For my part, I believe America can do better. I have spent most of my career in the private sector starting new businesses and turning around ailing ones. Unlike career politicians who've never met a payroll, I know why jobs come and go.

Today, I'm introducing a plan consisting of 59 specific proposals — including 10 concrete actions I will take on my first day in office — to turn around America's economy. Each proposal is rooted in the conservative premise that government itself cannot create jobs. At best, government can provide a framework in which economic growth can occur. All too often, however, government gets in the way. The past three years of unparalleled government expansion have retaught that lesson all too well.

Only the individual initiative of entrepreneurs, workers, investors and inventors enables companies, and our economy as a whole, to flourish. We must once again unleash the tremendous economic potential of the American people. The contrast between what the Obama administration has done and what I would do as president could not be starker.

. . . I would press hard in the opposite direction. Marginal income tax rates and tax rates on savings and investment must be kept low. Further, taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for middle-income taxpayers should be eliminated. Our corporate tax rate is among the world's highest. It leaves U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage and induces them to park their profits abroad, benefiting the rest of the world at our expense. I will fix these problems with permanent solutions. Ultimately, I will press for a total overhaul of our overly complex and inefficient system of taxation.

. . . I will pare back regulation, including eliminating "ObamaCare." I will direct every government agency to limit annual increases in regulatory costs to zero. The impact of any proposed new regulation must be offset by removing another regulation of equivalent cost. Every one of President Obama's regulations must be scrutinized, and those that unduly burden job creation must be axed.

. . . I will create the "Reagan Economic Zone," a partnership among countries committed to free enterprise and free trade. It will serve as a powerful engine for opening markets to our goods and services, and also a mechanism for confronting nations like China that violate trade rules while free-riding on the international system. I will not stand by while China pursues an economic development policy that relies on the unfair treatment of U.S. companies and the theft of their intellectual property. I have no interest in starting a trade war with China, but I cannot accept our current trade surrender.

. . . I will ensure we utilize to the fullest extent our nation's nuclear know-how and immense reserves in oil, gas and coal. By rationalizing and streamlining regulation, we will harness these resources everywhere it can be done safely, taking into account local concerns. A huge number of jobs is at stake. So, too, is the price of energy, which strongly influences economic growth. We are an energy-rich country that, thanks to environmental extremism, has chosen to live like an energy-poor country. That has to end.

. . . I will fight against measures that deprive workers of basic rights, such as the secret ballot. And I will not tolerate federal intrusions of the kind that the National Labor Relations Board initiated when it filed suit against Boeing for opening a plant in a right-to-work state.

We also need a rational system for worker retraining, instead of the existing 47 separate programs run by nine federal agencies. America can have the world's most competitive workforce, and under my leadership, we will.

. . . Tellingly, while the private sector shed 1.8 million jobs since Barack Obama took office, the federal workforce grew by 142,500, or almost 7%. A rollback is urgently required.

As this catalogue of differences makes clear, our country has arrived at a fork in the road. In one direction lies the heavy hand of the state, indebtedness and decline. In the other direction lies limited government, free enterprise and economic growth. I know which direction is the American way. And I know in which direction lie the millions of jobs we need.

did he miss anything on the Taxed Already Enough people's list?? I don't think so.

I would love to see fact checker check some of these claims, I believe they are not true.

[SilverSonic]

Our corporate tax rate is among the world's highest.

Even if corporations had to actually pay the rate they are 'taxed' at (they don't), that statement is incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

[BGuttman]

You really have to look at the whole tax package to make a statement like "we have the highest corporate tax in the world".  We might have one of the higher corporate income tax rates, but other countries will charge other taxes that we don't.  VAT is a form of corporate sales tax where you pay a tax based on "value added".  So if I buy a block of wood and convert it into a guitar, I have to pay a VAT on the expenses involved in creating the guitar.

Also, one has to look at what is provided for the taxes.  For example, other countries will have high taxes but will provide the retirement benefits, medical benefits, educational benefits, etc.

Note that most of the countries with the lowest corporate tax rates are places most of us wouldn't want to live in.

[B0B]

I would love to see fact checker check some of these claims, I believe they are not true.

for a start:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/06/311953/factchecking-romney-jobs-op-ed/

The thing that strikes me as odd, is mostly that the GOP "job plans" sound almost identical between candidates.

The thing that doesn't strike me as odd are that they are essentially large handouts to corporates and rich individuals and place the heaviest burden on those who can least afford to pay it. Like Mitt trying to say eliminating the Capital Gains tax will be a "middle-class tax cut" despite the fact that the middle class doesn't get hit by that one much at all. I also like how they throw out all of these tax cuts and then forget the whole cutting to keep in budget side like they do with spending.
 
Take care,
B0B

[sly fox]

caught a little bit of his speech today at 3:30 centeral

said he would ensure the middle class comes back by protecting its savings:

no taxes for middle class for income from saving accounts, dividends or captial gains

dividends and capital gains are investments not savings accounts


if he means what he said, he said no taxes on money received by individuals received from corporations, unless you are a wage earner, and no taxes on captial gains.

what the hell????

[BGuttman]

There is a fly in Romney's (and all the Republican) assertions that increasing money to the corporations will cause a hiring boom.

Right now corporate cash tills are fuller than they have been in a long time.  The companies are sitting on cash.  They have shown no interest in placing investments in new products, plant, machinery, materials, etc.

If we just give them more money how will that make them start spending money to hire people?

[ddickerson]

Obamacare is a huge black cloud hanging over small businesses, and until it is repealed or done away with, you won't see a lot of job growth. IMHO.

Remember too small businesses employ the vast majority of our people. People tend to forget, but there are only 500 companies in the top Fortune 500.

[sly fox]

link to Mitt's plan 88 page pdf

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/Romney%20for%20president%20jobs%20plan.pdf

from page 27

. . . Another step in the right direction would be a Middle-Class Tax Savings Plan that would enable most Americans to save more for retirement. As president, Romney will seek to eliminate taxation on capital gains, dividends, and interest for any taxpayer with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000, helping Americans to prepare for retirement and enjoy the freedom that accompanies financial security. This would encourage more Americans to save and to invest for the long-term, which would in turn free up capital for investment flowing back into the economy and helping to facilitate economic growth. . . .

since when  is investing in stocks and selling stocks/real property SAVINGS??????

Eliminate the Death Tax

Government should not tax the same income over and over again. The federal estate tax, also known as the “death tax,” does exactly that by taxing the wealth that Americans have been able to accumulate after already paying taxes throughout their
working lives. This tax also creates a series of perverse incentives that encourages the most complicated and convoluted tax-avoidance schemes at tremendous cost to all involved. Finally, it can have catastrophic effects when a small family-owned business, in the course of passing to the next generation, creates tax liabilities that the family cannot meet without breaking up the business itself. The federal estate tax has become a political football in recent years. The tax
was temporarily eliminated in 2010, was reinstated in a last-minute deal between Congress and President Obama at a top rate of 35 percent for 2011 and 2012, and is slated to bounce up to 55 percent in 2013. As president, Mitt Romney will work to eliminate the tax permanently. All told, the negative effects on savings, investment, and job creation show how pernicious an estate tax can

this falsehood has been around since I was in law school in the early '80s.  Almost all estates pass without any federal estate tax liability.

almost all:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/estate/who.cfm

Wealth Transfer Taxes: Who pays the estate tax?
 
The estate tax is highly progressive. The top ten percent of income earners pays virtually all of the tax; over half is paid by the richest 1 in 1,000. Much of the political debate about the estate tax cen-ters around its impact on family farms and small businesses. In fact, very few farms or businesses actually pay the tax.

■TPC estimates that 8,600 individuals dying in 2011 will leave estates large enough to require filing an estate tax return (estates with a gross value under $5 million need not file a return in 2011). After allowing for deductions and credits, an estimated 3,270 estates will owe tax. Roughly 90 percent of these taxable estates will come from the top ten percent of income earn-ers and nearly half will come from the top one percent alone (see table).
 ■Estate tax liability will total an estimated $10.6 billion in 2011. The top ten percent of income earners will pay 98 percent of this total. The richest 1 in 1,000 will pay $5.4 billion or 51 percent of the total.
 ■Less than 50 small farms and businesses - estates with farm and business assets making up at least half of gross estate and totaling $5 million or less - will pay any estate tax in 2011. Such estates will represent just 1.2 percent of all taxable estate tax returns.
 ■TPC estimates that small farms and businesses will pay under $10 million in estate tax in 2011, less than one tenth of 1 percent point of the total revenue the tax will collect.

more later perhaps.

of course others could do their own fact checking as well.

for a start:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/06/311953/factchecking-romney-jobs-op-ed/

 . . .
 
Take care,
B0B

thanks Bob, as I thought Mitt was not telling the truth on his claims of:

. . . Here is a fact-check of Romney’s piece:
 
ROMNEY: “Marginal income tax rates and tax rates on savings and investment must be kept low. Further, taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for middle-income taxpayers should be eliminated.”

REALITY: Taxes are the lowest they’ve been in 60 years, far lower than under several Republican presidents. Taxes on dividends and capital gains are far below the level at which they were under President Reagan. Furthermore, 68.3 percent of the capital gains tax is paid by the richest 1 percent of Americans, while the bottom 95 percent of Americans pay just 10 percent of them, so it is unclear how Romney thinks a capital gains tax cut can be fashioned as a middle class tax break.
 
ROMNEY: “Our corporate tax rate is among the world’s highest. It leaves U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage and induces them to park their profits abroad, benefiting the rest of the world at our expense.” 

REALITY: While the U.S. corporate tax rate is high on paper, once all the credits, deductions, and loopholes are accounted for, the U.S. has the second-lowest corporate taxes in the developed world.
 
ROMNEY: “President Obama has vastly expanded the regulatory reach of government. The federal government has estimated the price tag for its regulations at $1.75 trillion.” 

REALITY: This is a bogus number favored by the big business lobby, and widely cited by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It comes from a study that, according to John Irons of the Economic Policy Institute, “contains basic conceptual mistakes and relies on extraordinarily poor data.” “Its results should neither be used as a valid measure of the economic costs of regulation nor as a guide for policy,” he said.
 
ROMNEY: “I will not tolerate federal intrusions of the kind that the National Labor Relations Board initiated when it filed suit against Boeing for opening a plant in a right-to-work state.” 

REALITY: The NLRB suit against Boeing has nothing to do with the company opening a plant in a so-called “right-to-work” state, but that the company, by its own admission, shifted production from Washington state to South Carolina in retaliation against workers for striking, which is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
 
ROMNEY: “Tellingly, while the private sector shed 1.8 million jobs since Barack Obama took office, the federal workforce grew by 142,500, or almost 7%. A rollback is urgently required.”
 

REALITY: This is a favorite stat for conservatives, but it isn’t true. The GOP engineers the stat by leaving out all of the jobs lost by the U.S. Postal Service. As Politifact noted, “If the postal workers cuts were included, the overall increase in employees under Obama would be about 40,000, or a modest 1.4 percent increase in the workforce.” The federal workforce is also smaller than it was 20 years ago. Overall, the public sector has lost 600,000 during the Great  Recession

I like setting out the  truth b/c the links sometimes become inoperable.

[BGuttman]

I should point out that any business choosing not to hire a new worker for fear of Obama's Health Plan is being penny wise and pound foolish.  If you need a worker, his total costs are deductible and he should provide more income than he costs in salary and benefits.  If that's not the case, you shouldn't hire him regardless of the regulations.

Now if you were in France, where you needed to give an employee 2 years notice of a layoff, that could be something entirely different.

[B0B]

Obamacare is a huge black cloud hanging over small businesses, and until it is repealed or done away with, you won't see a lot of job growth. IMHO.

And how is that?

At this point, the tax incentive to offer health care has actually worked and more small businesses are offering insurance plans then before.

Or is it just more of the Obamacare is a socialist piece of legislation designed to punish hard working employers?

Remember too small businesses employ the vast majority of our people. People tend to forget, but there are only 500 companies in the top Fortune 500.

I can't find more current numbers then 2006, but as of then the fortune 500 companies also made up 73.4% of the GDP.

[sly fox]

Now to the Letter from the Speaker and the Majority Leader sent and delivered today asking for a meeting with the President before his speech on Thursday.

first thought

Grassley and DeMint on the Health Care Reform effort

Cantor on the Debt Ceiling Effort.

what did they have in common, the GOP dragged out negotiations and then bailed.  

conclusion, they don't want to negotiate, or see what they might agree to before the speedh, they only to drag out the proceedings and/or try to fool the public.

2nd thought.

letter sent today, great timing right.

take a good look at page 1, 2 and 3 of the official pdf of the letter released by the Speaker.  Note the dates:

today's date on page 1, page 2 has September 2, as does page 3:

http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/JOBS-Letter-to-President-9-6-11.pdf

I'm not shiteing you !!!!!

sure looks like the leadership of the House GOP really wanted to meet with the President doesn't it.

(in case anyone think I'm being picky, I'm not.  It is being professional, in court, if I filed a document with an error, it wasn't my secretary's or staff's fault, I had to eat it if I signed it otherwise - "Counselor, do you usually file documents that you sign without reading")

[SilverSonic]

Obamacare is a huge black cloud hanging over small businesses, and until it is repealed or done away with, you won't see a lot of job growth. IMHO.

Remember too small businesses employ the vast majority of our people. People tend to forget, but there are only 500 companies in the top Fortune 500.

All of the business owners I know look forward to dropping their staggeringly-expensive group health care plans and paying their workers to buy into the government plan. One music store owner says it will save him an average of $1,200 per employee per month after paying the estimated personal rate.

also-
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html

[ddickerson]

Obamacare weakens job growth by increasing the cost of labor for businesses via mandated taxes and new compliance regulations. Remember the 50 employee limit? Impedes growth.

Companies that decide not to offer healthcare and push their employees to the government are just pushing their costs on to the rest of us. That kinda goes against what obama promised tho'.

Plus, there are more tax hikes not healthcare related in the obamacare act that do not go in effect until 2013. Samall businesses are just in the tread water and try to stay afloat right now, and not willing to risk the unknown in trying to grow. It is a shame because this is a manmade crisis and could be solved.

[BGuttman]

Sly, my BS meter pegged and broke reading that letter.  It's a clear line in the sand that says "fuggedaboudit, whatever you were thinking.  We're not only not on your side, we're going to do what we want."  And the date issue is an indication that they had this in the works for a while.

I need to find a good repairman for the BS meter.

Dickerson, what non-health related taxes and levies are associated with the Obama Health Care Plan?  Is there a special tax on IT infrastructure?  A requirement to hire Illegal Mexicans?  You are being purposefully vague.

[sly fox]

Obamacare weakens job growth by increasing the cost of labor for businesses via mandated taxes and new compliance regulations. Remember the 50 employee limit? Impedes growth.

Companies that decide not to offer healthcare and push their employees to the government are just pushing their costs on to the rest of us. That kinda goes against what obama promised tho'.

Plus, there are more tax hikes not healthcare related in the obamacare act that do not go in effect until 2013. Samall businesses are just in the tread water and try to stay afloat right now, and not willing to risk the unknown in trying to grow. It is a shame because this is a manmade crisis and could be solved.

You want to provide some citations there???  or is this just stuff you have been told by certain people???

seems like you are about to tell us about the death panels again.

[ddickerson]

You want to provide some citations there???  or is this just stuff you have been told by certain people???

seems like you are about to tell us about the death panels again.

John Culberson US Rep:
http://culberson.house.gov/tax-increases-in-the-senate-health-care-bill/

Teaser:
"The Senate bill also employs a trick by implementing 10 years of tax increases and cuts to Medicare in order to pay for just 6 years of benefits."

This info has been on-line since 2010 and the only part of this that has been corrected or refuted refers to the 3.8% sales tax on real estate sales. True, it doesn't impact everybody, but it is there in the obamacare bill. Probably will effect those that invest in real estate, which I'm sure don't fall into the 'protected' class of the dems. So, to them, it's as if it's not even in the bill. Of course, to anyone who knows how government works, once something is in the bill, it is easy to change the numbers without even passing a new bill or amendment. So, how far in the future before it does impact all real estate sales?

[sly fox]

John Culberson US Rep:
http://culberson.house.gov/tax-increases-in-the-senate-health-care-bill/

Teaser:
"The Senate bill also employs a trick by implementing 10 years of tax increases and cuts to Medicare in order to pay for just 6 years of benefits." . . .

now dd, you and I both know that there were alot of changes in the Health Care Reform Act House and Senate bills between your source

Tax Increases in the Senate Health Care Bill
March 21, 2010

and final passage of the compromise Act.  so are the things set out in your source in the final legislation or not????

your claim, your burden of proof. imho

[PWCom]

Why does every Republican candidate have these bundle plans?  I see some things in there that I might actually agree with, but it is always mixed in with the batshit crazy!  I swear, I support the conservative side and they still seem to be getting crazier every day.

[ddickerson]

now dd, you and I both know that there were alot of changes in the Health Care Reform Act House and Senate bills between your source

and final passage of the compromise Act.  so are the things set out in your source in the final legislation or not????

your claim, your burden of proof. imho

Starting 1-1-2011 Tax increases associated with Obamacare
http://www.examiner.com/will-county-libertarian-in-chicago/starting-1-1-2011-tax-increases-associated-with-obamacare

You can compare this list of 32 items to John Culberson's list to see what made it and what didn't. Suffice to say, that my earlier claim of tax hikes (some are health related and a lot are not per my claim) in the obamacare act was true.

[BGuttman]

DD, just as an example, I have to buy health insurance under the COBRA (as long as we are eligible).  We are past the point where we get any contribution from our State, and my health insurance costs $1500 a month.  This is probably what an employer would pay for similar coverage.  The penalty for not providing this coverage is $750 a year per employee.  Wanna be a cheap b******?  Go ahead.  Don't provide health coverage.  You are still way ahead of the game.

I noticed a few non-Health taxes in the listing.  One was an increase (no amount given) in the tax on bio-fuel.  There were tax increases on tanning salons (a health risk) and tobacco (a health risk).  There were some delays in preventing "double taxation" of certain Americans overseas or multinational corporations (wonder how many people that relates to?).  There was an increase in the covered deposit in FDIC banks, but this is something that happens regularly with inflation.

Also, there are punitive damages for large companies who choose not to provide health care.  This is intended to keep some of the "sharpers" like Wal-Mart and McDonald's in line (who either offer sham plans or use the ruse of part time to avoid paying any benefits).

I agree your taxes are going up.  For that matter, my taxes are going up since the Medical deduction starts at a higher percent of my AGI.

I would be happier if we didn't try this "nickel and dime" approach and simply set up a "Health Care Company" and had us pay taxes to have them give us coverage up to a certain basic limit.

[sly fox]

Thank you dd for the updated citation.

just in case someone thinks I am quoting from all politifact.com articles on health care, not yet, I'm working my way through the 28 pages to try to find info.

anyone want to help??

http://www.politifact.com/subjects/health-care/

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Economist-Mom/2011/0106/Why-Republicans-really-want-to-repeal-health-reform


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/13/debbie-wasserman-schultz/dnc-chair-wasserman-schultz-says-obama-has-signed-/

. . . "I think we need to cut taxes on small businesses," said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.

"Well, that's good," retorted DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., "because we've done that, 17 times."

 Looking out for small businesses is a mainstay of political rhetoric these days. "The small business community is sort of a favored group on which to shower tax breaks," said Joseph Rosenberg, research associate at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

 But have there been 17 tax cuts for small businesses by the Obama administration?

 Asked for backup, the DNC press office pointed us to a Feb. 25, 2011, posting on the official White House blog titled "Seventeen Small Business Tax Cuts and Counting." The post enumerates 17 small business tax cuts and credits created or extended through legislation signed by President Barack Obama.

 Eight of them were included in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the economic stimulus), the Affordable Care Act (aka the health care law), and the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (aka the Hire Act). Among the cuts: the exclusion of up to 75 percent of capital gains on key small business investments; a tax credit for the cost of health insurance for small business employees, and new tax credits for hiring Americans out of work for at least two months. . . .

 Now are we talking apples and apples or apples and oranges???

http://dmarron.com/2011/01/21/what-is-health-care-reform/

What is Health Care Reform?

January 21, 2011 by Donald Marron
. . . That simple question is “what is health care reform?”
 
The policy community and commentariat often equate health care reform with the legislation (actually two pieces of legislation) that President Obama signed into law last year. As everyone knows, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that those two laws would, if fully implemented, reduce the federal budget deficit by $143 billion from 2010-2019. That’s the basis for the claim that “health care reform would reduce the deficit over the next ten years.” (CBO also discussed what would happen in later years, where the law, if allowed to execute fully, would have a bigger effect, but let’s leave that to the side right now.)
 
The complication, which Greg’s post partly addresses, is that the health care reform legislation included many provisions. Greg notes, for example, that some expanded health insurance, while others raised taxes. In his view, only the first part constitutes health care reform — an effort that by itself would widen the deficit — while the tax increases are what made the legislation deficit-reducing.
 
In fact, it’s more complicated than that. By my count, the two pieces of health care reform legislation combined seven different sets of provisions:
 
1. Expanding health insurance coverage (e.g., by creating exchanges and subsidies and expanding Medicaid)
 
2. Expanding federal payments for and provision of health care services (e.g., reducing the “doughnut hole” in the Medicare drug benefit)
 
3. Cuts to federal payments for and provision of health care services (e.g., cuts to Medicare Advantage and some Medicare payment rates)
 
4. Tax increases related to insurance coverage (e.g., the excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans)
 
5. Tax increases not related to insurance coverage (e.g., the new tax on investment income)
 
6. The CLASS Act, which created an insurance program for long-term care
 
7. Reform of federal subsidies for student loans
 
(The House Republicans’ effort to repeal health care reform would overturn 1-6, but leave the student loan changes in place.) . . .

some people are indeed under the mistaken impression that health care reform, by itself, reduces the budget deficit over the next ten years. It doesn’t.
 
However, Greg’s analogy has a flaw: it presumes that none of the tax increases count as health reform. I disagree.
 
Our current tax system provides enormous ($200 billion per year) subsidies for employer-provided health insurance. They should be viewed as part of the government’s existing intervention in the health marketplace. And rolling back those subsidies strikes me as essential to future health care reform. I would count any revenues raised from doing so as part of health care reform.
 
That didn’t happen, but the legislation did include a tax on “Cadillac” health plans as a partial substitute. That will clearly affect health insurance markets, and it offset a portion of existing tax subsidies. For both those reasons, it should be viewed as part of health care reform.
 
The key thing is not the difference between spending and revenues, but between provisions that fundamentally change the health care system and those that do not.
 
Happily, I am not alone in this view. Indeed, it has been endorsed by none other than the Congressional Budget Office. CBO grappled with this issue during the health care debate. And after much thought, it came up with a useful measure of the health care reform part of the legislation: the “Federal Government’s Budgetary Commitment to Health Care“. This measure combines the spending and tax subsidies that the government provides for health care.
 
Taking all the health care provisions into account, CBO concluded that the health care reform legislation would increase the federal government’s budgetary commitment to health care. But not as much as many critics suggest. Adding together items (1) through (4) on my list, CBO concluded that the health care reform parts of the legislation would increase the deficit by about $400 billion over ten years. That would then be more than offset by the other provisions — primarily taxes but also the student loan provisions and the CLASS Act. (In later years, by the way, CBO projects that the legislation would actually reduce the federal commitment to health care.) . . .

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/23/chain-email/health-care-law-sales-tax-home-sales-no/

. . .  The root of this claim appears to be Section 1402 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, titled "Unearned income Medicare contribution."  Legislative wonks might remember that this was the second part of the health care bill, passed via reconciliation so that it only required 50 votes. Democrats had to do it that way after they lost their 60-seat majority due to a special election for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. (Republican Scott Brown won the seat that Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Democrat, held until his death.)

 The health care law imposes a 3.8 percent tax on the investment income of couples who make more than $250,000 or individuals who make more than $200,000. That investment income could include income from real estate transactions. But it would only apply to those high earners, who make up less than 5 percent of all taxpayers. We're not sure why the e-mail extrapolates this tax to all real estate transactions, but that's the only 3.8 percent tax we could find in the new law. We ran this by two tax policy experts who confirmed our analysis of the new law.

 Under current law, workers pay Medicare hospital taxes on wages. Workers and employers split a 2.9 percent tax; the self-employed pay all of it.

 The new tax marks the first time investment income will be subject to Medicare taxes, said Clint Stretch, the managing principal for tax policy at Deloitte Tax LLP. We should point out that the government currently taxes investment income in various ways and could have simply raised current rates.

 But lawmakers wanted to link the new revenues to health care, Stretch said. "The point of doing it as a Medicare tax was to have the money go to the Medicare trust fund and have it act like a tax that is paying for health care. So there is additional complexity," he said.

And by the way, if you're an empty-nester of any means, and you're thinking of downsizing, part of your profits are already tax-free. There are long-standing tax exemptions on the profits from home sales. In general, if you sell your own home, individuals are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit and married couples are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit. Again, that's profit, not the sales price.

 If you're wealthy and sell your home at a substantial profit, it's possible you might get hit with the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income. Most Americans won't have to worry about this, though. . . .

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/apr/18/john-carter/rep-john-carter-says-families-special-needs-childr/

Rep. John Carter says families with special needs children will pay $13 billion more in taxes under the new health care law. . . 

Ellis, from Americans for Tax Reform, agreed there's no data on how many FSA accounts are held by special-needs parents. But he said they'll be particularly affected by a cap because they bear high costs relating to special-needs education.
 
Ellis said he has a friend who uses his FSA to help pay his Down syndrome child's tuition at a special-needs' school in the District of Columbia. Ellis said his friend's employer caps his flexible spending account at $5,000.
 
On the other hand, Rich Robison, executive director of the Federation for Children with Special Needs in Massachusetts, and the parent of two young adults with Down syndrome, pointed out that the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act (IDEA) requires schools to pay for accommodations a child with special needs may need to obtain a "free appropriate public education."
 
Henry Aaron, an economics scholar at the left-leaning Brookings Institution, said he suspects "only a tiny fraction" of the estimated $13 billion tax revenue would come from families with special-needs' children.
 
Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that Carter's claim ignores the health law's broader impact: the JCT and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office project that 32 million uninsured will have health insurance coverage by 2016. "Some of those are families with people with special needs," he said.
 
The upshot?
 
Carter's statement that the health care law will smack a $13 billion tax increase entirely on families with children who have special needs defies common sense. At our inquiry, his office backed off the sweep of Carter's Twitter message and conceded they didn't have numbers confirming that special-needs' families would bear the brunt of the tax change.
 
All in all, Carter makes a dramatic, unsupported charge. We rate his statement as Pants on Fire.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/jan/07/pat-mullins/gop-chairman-mullins-says-health-care-bill-end-pre/

GOP Chairman Mullins says health care bill ends pre-tax puchases of aspirin and other non-prescription drugs

Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Pat Mullins kicked off the New Year attacking recent side effects of health care overhaul on Flexible Spending Accounts, which allow workers to pay medical expenses with pre-tax dollars. . . .

According to the Internal Revenue Service guidance on flexible spending accounts, a new provision "as added by the Affordable Care Act, provides that...beginning after December 31, 2010, expenses incurred for a medicine or a drug shall be treated as a reimbursement for medical expenses only if such medicine or drug is a prescribed drug (determined without regard to whether such drug is available without a prescription) or is insulin."

 In other words, you will no longer be able to use FSAs to pay for your aspirin, antacids and other over-the-counter drugs if they’re not prescribed by a physician.

 What about HSAs -- tax-advantaged health savings accounts? Pretty much the same.

 The IRS says that "a distribution from an HSA...for a medicine or drug is a tax-free qualified medical expense only if (1) the medicine or drug requires a prescription, (2) is an over-the-counter medicine or drug and the individual obtains a prescription, or (3) is insulin."

 Otherwise, those "non-qualified expenses" will be taxed at 20 percent rather than the current 10 percent for HSA plan participants.

 So, while the recently enacted portion of the health care law will not stop consumers from being able to buy over-the-counter drugs through their plans, it will require a prescription to do so.

 On that count, Mullins stays relatively safe by employing the phrase "non-prescription health needs" at the end of his claim. True, those items like aspirin can still qualify for reimbursement with a prescription, but then they would not longer be "non-prescription."

 But the same phrase also presents a problem for Mullins because other "non-prescription" items such as medical supplies and first-aid items remain eligible for reimbursement without a prescription.

 "Over-the-counter medications are treated differently than over-the-counter medical items like Band-Aids, which are covered without a prescription," said Michael Waxman of Save Flexible Spending Plans. . . .

Mullins says health care law provisions that took effect Jan. 1 will "remove the ability of consumers to use FSA and HSA plans to pay for things like aspirin and other non-prescription health needs."

 It’s true that as of Jan. 1, FSA and HSA plans no longer offered reimbursements for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. However, those same items could be covered with a prescription.

 Mullins misses a caveat by not noting that non-prescription items like crutches, bandages, and health supplies like diagnostic devices and blood sugar test kits remain covered. But his comments seem directed at drugs.

 We find his claim True. 

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/jan/15/eric-cantor/cantor-says-health-care-reform-collects-1o-years-t/

The health care reform law "offset(s) 6 years of benefits with 10 years of tax increases."

Eric Cantor on Thursday, January 6th, 2011 in a statement.

Cantor says health care reform collects 10 years of taxes for six years of benefits . . .

"Despite claims that this trillion dollar bill would reduce deficits and save taxpayer dollars, the new law is riddled with budget gimmicks that double count savings, offset 6 years of benefits with 10 years of tax increases, and rely on cuts to Medicare and tax increases to fund a new entitlement," Cantor said.

 We wondered about the oft-repeated assertion that the law would offset six years of benefits with 10 years of tax increases.

Asked for a source, Cantor’s deputy press secretary Megan Whittemore replied:

 "By law, ObamaCare implements new taxes and fees to ‘pay for’ new subsides aka benefits.  With regard to the question about offsetting six years of benefits with ten years of tax increases, the law raises taxes and fees immediately upon enactment – as we have already seen – while not paying out for the cost of benefits contained within the law until 2014. Thus, the 10-year period scored by the CBO only accounts for the cost of 6 years of benefits actually going out the door, compared to 10 years of taxes and fees coming in."

 Looking at the big picture, that’s not entirely true. . . .

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/feb/14/rick-scott/rick-scott-says-health-care-bill-biggest-tax-incre/

. . . The health care law certainly is, on the whole, a tax increase.

Major tax provisions
 
The federal Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan committee of Congress with a professional staff of economists, attorneys and accountants, provided members a detailed breakdown of tax impact from 2010-2019.

• Starting in 2013, Medicare payroll taxes increase 0.9 percentage points for people with incomes over $200,000 ($250,000 for couples filing jointly). Also, people at this income level would pay a new 3.8 percent tax on investment income. The 10-year cost: $210.2 billion.

• Starting in 2018, a new 40 percent excise tax on high-cost health plans, so-called "Cadillac plans" (over $10,200 for individuals, $27,500 for families), kicks in. That's expected to bring the government a total of $32 billion in 2018 and 2019.

• Starting in 2011, there's a new fee for pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers. That's expected to raise $27 billion over 10 years.

• Starting in 2013, a 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices starts. The 10-year total: $20 billion.

• Starting in 2014, a new annual fee on health insurance providers begins. Total estimated 10-year revenue: $60.1 billion.

• Starting in 2013, the floor on medical expense deductions on itemized income tax returns will be raised from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of income. That's expected to bring in $15.2 billion over the next 10 years.

• Starting in 2011, a 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services. That's expected to bring in $2.7 billion over the next 10 years.
 
There also is money in the law going the other way. The plan includes government money, in the form of tax credits, to subsidize the cost of health insurance for lower-income people who don't get insurance through their employer. For the record, many Republicans and tax experts argue those shouldn't count as tax cuts. And there is a tax cut for some very small businesses that allows them to write off a portion of the cost of providing insurance to their employees.

 Combined with various other revenue-generating provisions, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the health law will bring in more than $437.8 billion by 2019. The government's nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the additional revenues coming in to the government to be $525 billion between now and 2019. . . .

[sly fox]

. . .  Of course, to anyone who knows how government works, once something is in the bill, it is easy to change the numbers without even passing a new bill or amendment. . . .

do you want to explain that statement.  it appears you are saying that once a bill (did you mean a law????) was passed, it could be changed w/o a new law or amendment????

I don't understand your claim here.

[PWCom]

do you want to explain that statement.  it appears you are saying that once a bill (did you mean a law????) was passed, it could be changed w/o a new law or amendment????

I don't understand your claim here.

Do you know about the huge financial reform signed into law a little over a year ago?  It has been completely dismantled without any legislation being passed, it doesn't have its regulatory body set up after a year, and most of its provisions were either completely scrapped or are ineffective.  It was supposed to be the strongest financial reform bill since the Great Depression.  Instead, it's a joke.

[BGuttman]

Do you know about the huge financial reform signed into law a little over a year ago?  It has been completely dismantled without any legislation being passed, it doesn't have its regulatory body set up after a year, and most of its provisions were either completely scrapped or are ineffective.  It was supposed to be the strongest financial reform bill since the Great Depression.  Instead, it's a joke.

There is a difference between changing a law and simply not enforcing it.  You seem to be describing a situation where the law was simply not enforced.  If you travel faster than the speed limit and don't get a traffic citation, you still broke the law but the law was not enforced.

I'd be really curious about what this law was.  If the Congress withdrew funds to enforce it, then the problem is not necessarily the law but the Congress.

[sly fox]

Do you know about the huge financial reform signed into law a little over a year ago?  It has been completely dismantled without any legislation being passed, it doesn't have its regulatory body set up after a year, and most of its provisions were either completely scrapped or are ineffective.  It was supposed to be the strongest financial reform bill since the Great Depression.  Instead, it's a joke.

are you referring to this, or part of this??? 

Commodity Exchange Act, Consumer Credit Protection Act, Federal Deposit Insurance Act, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, Federal Reserve Act, Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, International Banking Act of 1978, Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, Revised Statutes of the United States, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Truth in Lending Act

aka "Dodd/Frank"

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4173enr.txt.pdf

It is a huge numbers of laws, actually, and will take years to implement,if it is implemented.

http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/2011/07/20/one-year-later-after-dodd-frank

ONE YEAR LATER: After Dodd-Frank Financial Reform, Do the Banks Still Run the Place?

http://www.advisorone.com/2011/05/16/will-the-112th-congress-repeal-doddfrank

Will the 112th Congress Repeal Dodd-Frank?

http://www.securitiesdocket.com/2011/01/20/how-can-congress-kill-dodd-frank-by-underfunding-it/

How Can Congress Kill Dodd-Frank? By Underfunding It

 January 20, 2011, 7:44 am

[PWCom]

Yes, I believe I was referring to the Dodd-Frank bill.  I simply didn't have information in front of me or the time to look it up. 

[sly fox]

okee dokee

I had the time.

now, what is it you think hasn't been done with D/F that should have been done by now

can you elaborate on your post and tell us how it has been completely dismantled w/o further legislation, etc, etc, etc, and so forth and so on???

Do you know about the huge financial reform signed into law a little over a year ago?  It has been completely dismantled without any legislation being passed, it doesn't have its regulatory body set up after a year, and most of its provisions were either completely scrapped or are ineffective.  It was supposed to be the strongest financial reform bill since the Great Depression.  Instead, it's a joke.

many "progressive" critics of D/F as passed said it didn't go far enough, many "conservative" critics of D/F said it went too far.

perhaps you were talking about the Republicans in the Senate and their threats:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/06/news/economy/consumer_bureau_director/?hpt=po_bn1

No chief for the consumer bureau any time soon

By Jennifer Liberto @CNNMoney September 6, 2011: 5:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- President Obama's nominee to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau got a hearing on Tuesday, but that may be all he gets.

Democrats want Richard Cordray to be the consumer bureau's first director. Republicans say they haven't changed their mind -- they won't confirm any director to run the bureau without significant changes to the bureau's structure, which would weaken the bureau's powers.

During the Tuesday hearing, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking panel, Sen. Richard Shelby, called the hearing "premature," saying that the panel shouldn't be considering any nominee until Democrats take their demands for accountability more seriously.

Republicans want the director replaced with a panel and they want to make it easier to veto consumer bureau rules.

"You're caught between a big substantive debate here, as you well know," Shelby said to Cordray.

Cordray, 52, works as the chief enforcement officer for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in Washington. He's an attorney who served in the Ohio state house and teaches at Ohio State University as an adjunct professor.

Democrats used the Senate banking hearing to complain that Republicans were using filibuster powers to hamstring the bureau and rehash a battle fought last year. . . .

<boy, I've hijacked my own thread, once again,  >

[B0B]

Can we get back to the "jobs" plan, as it was?

As it stands now, the candidates with "jobs" plans look basically identical and are focused on things like corporate a tax holiday to bring in offshore money (which went almost entirely to help the balance sheets and stock holders and not to jobs last time) rather then creating jobs. Ones without "plans" either say things along the same lines, rely on misleading numbers(Perry), and then there's Ron Paul who says the government should just stay out of it.

Sadly I'm seeing an almost complete lack of job growth measures in their "jobs" proposals but rather just budget stuff and handouts for large corporations and super rich. Kind of like how Boehner's letter to Obama about his upcoming speech claimed a number of budget bills were "job" bills, including the 2012 budget. Seriously, laying out a budget is not a "jobs" proposal any more then the bills to rename public works are.

I hate to say the obvious but the government cannot create jobs in the private sector, only the public. If we are looking to the government to create jobs, increased government spending and workforce is a necessary part of it. Otherwise, the most it can do is encourage the private sector with a stick and or a carrot. Right now, the private sector is the leanest and most productive and profitable it's ever been. They don't have the demand or the need to bring on many other people, and giving out "carrots" like reducing regs and/or taxes is likely only to increase their profits at a cost to the general public. And any "stick" policies like addressing the trade imbalances, off-shoring, and such are quickly labeled as "job killing" when they're really profit-reducing in an attempt to make it cost effective to bring employment back to this country. Right now, just the only thing on the plate for the GOP is not a balance of all of them, which is probably needed, but a complete focus on useless carrots that serve to benefit their donor base.

Take care,
B0B

[sly fox]

haven't been watching debate but catching blog enteries:

if this is accurate, it might be the mistake Romney didn't want to make - for the general election, that is.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/live-blog-perry-makes-his-debate-debut/

10:20 P.M. Fact Check: Who Pays Taxes?.

Mr. Romney was asked about the fact that 47 percent of American households pay no federal income taxes, and he replied by lamenting that so many people do not support "our troops" or roads and schools. The actual figure is 46 percent for 2011, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of Brookings Institution and Urban Institute think tanks; about 70 percent are households with low-income workers, and the rest are higher-income households whose tax breaks erase their liability.
 
But those households do pay federal taxes, including payroll taxes and the excise taxes on gasoline and other products that support the federal roads system. And many pay local taxes, including property taxes, that support public schools.

of course with the Republican Primary voters, it might just get him the nomination.

[sly fox]

from the transcript, this time:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/politics/08republican-debate-text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, time. Governor Romney...

(APPLAUSE)

... you -- you often here this figure, 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax, and -- and the promised effort underway soon, at least, in Washington to correct that. Isn't some of this argument semantics? And won't the effort to correct that be a de facto tax increase?

ROMNEY: You know, I must admit, I have a bit of a hard time with the idea that there are people who don't feel like they're supporting our troops by contributing tax revenue through -- through the income tax or through other tax vehicles.

I don't want to raise taxes on the American people, but I think everybody ought to feel that they're part of this effort and that they're providing for our military, providing for our roads, providing for our schools. That ought to be part of what -- what every American experiences.

But right now, the question is not the people at the -- that are not paying taxes at the low end. The question is not the people who are very, very rich. The question is, how about middle-income Americans?

Who are the people most hurt by the Obama economy? And the answer is the middle class. The great majority of Americans are having a very, very difficult time. And our effort has to be to find ways to reduce to burden on those people.

And that's why I've proposed that anybody who's earning $200,000 a year and less ought to be able to save their money tax-free, no tax on interest, dividends, or capital gains. Let people save their money, invest in America, and not have to give more money to the government. The middle class needs our help.

[SilverSonic]

exactly 46 percent of the populace doesn't pay taxes, so..." It's a fallacy. That just means that exactly the majority of people in this country don't even make enough ****** money to contribute more than they take out in benefits. We should be ASHAMED of that--not ashamed of the 46 percent, but ashamed of the fact that we've allowed wealth to migrate so obscenely to such a small portion of the populace.

Repubs outraged that a family of 4 that makes that less than $22,350/year has no tax liability at the end of the year? These families are living the high life! We need to take some of that back in the name of millionaires that pay an average of 10% tax liability after deductions!

This remains an incredibly wealthy country--it's just that a smaller and smaller number of people benefit from that wealth. Until we truly see that for the obscenity it is, nothing will change.

[SensitiveJohn]

It's long been the goal of the Republican to turn America's economy into a Latin-American type economy with large inequities between rich and poor, and now with the help of the moderate senators, Obama, teahadists and the teavangelicals, this is coming to fruition.  Obama's latest cave-in allowing a decrease in education spending is part of this scheme.

[PWCom]

I find it funny he comments that the middle class is the worst hurt by the Obama economy.  I don't like everything Obama does, but I give him credit for taxes.  We are at the lowest rates on taxes we've had since the 60s, including the middle class.  Hardly 'overtaxed'.  At some point the rates are less important than the loopholes, and I think that we are near or at the point now. 

[sly fox]

if, as the Republicans claim, government doesn't create jobs, how can Mitt run on the issue of how he created jobs???

[SensitiveJohn]

During the time that Mitt was governor of Massachusetts, employment went up.  However, there was also a veto proof Democratic majority in the General Court.  As for his job creation in the private sector, many people were laid off when his company did the synergy thing with the leveraged buyouts and such, and while Bain Capital did grow and create jobs, the leveraged buyouts eliminated jobs.  I am uncertain as to whether Mitt created or lost jobs in the private sector; my guess is that he eliminated more jobs by shutting down companies than he created at Bain Capital.  And, the reason that Mitt didn't run for reelection for governor is because he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected.  And, as for Mitt's claim about being a Washington insider, that is true; he lost to Ted Kennedy when he was trying to get into the Senate.

[sly fox]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/21/romney-draws-social-security-battle-lines/#more-177106

. . . While laying out his plan to reform the entitlement program Wednesday, the former Massachusetts governor criticized what he sees as a nonexistent plan from the president and an unfeasible plan proposed by Texas Gov. Perry.
 
"So those are the three models, one is the president's, which is to say something needs to happen but I'm not willing to tell you anything about how to do it, number two is that of Gov. Perry that says, look send it back to the states," Romney said at a town hall in Miami. "And number three is the plan I proposed, which is to say look, we're not going to raise taxes, we're going to slow the rate of inflation down and in calculating the benefit of high income Social Security recipients and overtime we'll increase the retirement age by a modest amount."
 

. . . Romney also said he disagrees with Perry's suggestion that individual states take control of Social Security.
 
The 2008 Republican presidential candidate, who is making his second bid for the White House, stepped up his attacks at Wednesday's event explaining what he sees are the failures of removing the federal government from the equation.
 
"In my opinion this thing does not work in any way, shape or form," Romney said. "I can't see anything which suggests it makes any sense whatsoever to end Social Security as a federal entitlement and send it back to the states."
 
Romney said Perry's plan raises a series of other questions, which he released in a press statement earlier in the day, including how individuals would move to other areas of the country and if states could forgo a pension program all together.
 
Perry Campaign Spokesman Ray Sullivan responded to Romney's comments in a press release, saying that while Romney has been running for office, Perry has proposed a plan that will protect the program for future generations.
 
"Rick Perry and other conservatives are courageous enough to be honest about federal spending and entitlements, whether Mr. Romney and the liberals like it or not," Sullivan said. "Gov. Perry has been clear that he will protect benefits for those at and nearing retirement, and work with citizens, experts and elected leaders to fix Social Security financing for future generations."

and they complain that the President isn't specific.

"where is the beef"

[BGuttman]

Reminds me of Nixon in 1968:

"I have a plan to end the War.  I can't tell you what it is because that would sabotage our efforts in the field."

He had no plan.  He was elected over Humphrey because America was disgusted with the no-win situation there.

We did end the Viet-Nam War during Nixon's Presidency (actually under Ford).  Not because we won; the other side didn't lose.  This is the way to beat the US.  We don't like long wars.  The Iraqis and Afghanis know this and are in the process of bleeding us dry.

[SensitiveJohn]

I find it funny he comments that the middle class is the worst hurt by the Obama economy.

It's far from the truth.  The people hurt the most by this economy have been the poor.  The poverty level is defined as $22,350 per year for a family of four.  This is very low because no family of four could live on that unless someone else was providing them with a place to live.  13.2% of Americans were living below the poverty level at the height of the recession back when Obama was elected in 2008.  Despite the end of the recession, Democratic control of both houses, and the stimulus package, more people have fallen into poverty during the Obama presidency.  When you consider that 15.1% of Americans are now living below the poverty level, one can appreciate how truly ineffective Obama has been.  Unfortunately, I hear no Republicans and very few Democrats willing to address this very serious situation.

[sly fox]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/us/politics/mitt-romney-changes-his-tone-on-flat-tax-plans.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Romney, Once a Critic, Hedges on Flat-Tax Plans
 
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and ASHLEY PARKER
 
Published: October 23, 2011

[BGuttman]

Romney's finger must be wrinkled from all the times he wets it and holds it up to see which way the wind is blowing

And the Republicans called Kerry a flip-flopper?

[sly fox]

selections from Mitt's plan for full text of his prepared speech, please follow the link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282307/romneys-spending-cuts-proposal-katrina-trinko

. . . I put my faith in people.

That is why I will make government simpler, smaller, and smarter.

This is not only good for the economy, it is a moral imperative. We cannot with moral conscience borrow trillions of dollars that can only be repaid by our children. We cannot so weaken our economic foundation that we jeopardize our ability to preserve freedom.

There are some who argue that fiscal responsibility is heartless and immoral. No, what is heartless is to imperil our children. And what is immoral is to imperil the strength of the nation that was founded “under God” and preserved by His hand.    

This is a pivotal moment in the history of the country. We will either be led by men and women who care only for the present, who promise more and ask for less, and who ignore the tightening noose of debt–or we will be led by those who believe that deficits matter and who have the courage to act with fiscal responsibility.

When I became the Governor of Massachusetts in 2003, the state budget was out of control.  My legislature was 85% Democrat. Some thought we should just raise taxes or borrow more money.  I said no.

Even with about the most Democratic legislature in the nation, we didn’t just slow the growth of spending, we cut spending. And we turned a $3 billion budget shortfall into a $2 billion rainy day fund.

I learned how to balance budgets in business.  In the private sector, you have no choice—you either balance your budget or you go broke.  And you spend every dollar like it’s your own, because it is.

 . . . That’s a difference between the private sector and government–fiscal responsibility.

I took my business experience and brought it to the Olympics.  I came at a time when the Games were in crisis.  We had a $370 million budget deficit, and some said the Games would fail.

. . . I used the commonsense principles I had relied on so many times in the private sector to come up with $98 million in immediate budget cuts. When it was all said and done, our Olympics were among the most successful ever, and instead of a deficit, we produced $100 million dollars for an endowment fund.

In business, in the Olympics, and in Massachusetts, I’ve learned how to eliminate deficits and to produce results. When I get to the White House, no one will need to teach me how to balance budgets. I’ve been doing that for 35 years.

It is time to level with the American people about what it will take to cut spending and balance our budget, to set honest goals and present a credible plan to achieve them.

This won’t be easy. It requires tough choices.  Many believe it can’t be done.  I believe it must be done.  I believe in the American people. When the nation calls, Americans deliver.

. . . I pledge to reduce spending to 20% of GDP by the end of my first term. I will cap it at that level.  And further, I will put us on a path to a balanced budget and a constitutional amendment that requires the government to spend only what it earns.

To reach the 20% goal, we’ll need to find almost $500 billion in savings a year in 2016.

Upon taking office, I will immediately cut discretionary spending and submit a budget that returns spending to pre-Obama levels.

However, as I said at the Citadel, I will reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts.  Any savings we will find in the defense budget we will re-direct to rebuild our navy and our air force, to add active duty soldiers and sailors, and to provide the care our veterans deserve.   The world has not become a less dangerous place. We must preserve our commitment to a military that is so strong, no nation would ever think of testing it.

My roadmap to a smaller, simpler government combines three separate approaches.

First, eliminate and cut programs.

That will start with the easiest cut of all: I will repeal Obamacare.  This alone will save us $95 billion a year.  It’s bad law, bad policy, and when I’m president, the bad news of Obamacare will be over.

There are many other federal programs that we must either dramatically scale back or cut out entirely. For each program, I will ask this question – “is this program so critical, so essential, that we should borrow money from China to pay for it?”  

I like Amtrak, but I’m not willing to borrow $1.6 billion a year to subsidize it.  I like the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but I refuse to borrow almost $1 billion a year from China to pay for them.

And then there’s foreign aid. Did you know that we give $27 million a year in foreign aid to China? I will stop sending money to any country that can take care of itself. And no foreign aid will go to countries that oppose American interests.

We spend $300 million a year on groups like Planned Parenthood, which provide abortions or abortion-related services. It’s long past time for that to be over.

So first, we will eliminate or cut programs that are not absolutely essential.

Second, we return numerous federal programs to the states. That’s because innovation, cost management, and reduction of fraud and abuse can far exceed what Washington is able to achieve.

Medicaid is a prime example.  We need to turn Medicaid back to the states and allow them to craft the healthcare solutions that suit their citizens best.  By limiting the growth of Medicaid funding to CPI plus one percent, we will save $100 billion a year.

Today, nine federal agencies run 47 different federal worker retraining programs at a cost of $18 billion a year. Just imagine how much is spent on overhead.  I will send those workforce training dollars back to the states, empowering them to retrain workers in ways that fit the needs of their respective economies.   In the process, we can save billions of dollars.

Finally, in addition to cutting programs and returning programs to states, there is a third approach to reining-in federal spending. It is to impose far greater productivity and efficiency on government itself, just like is regularly done in every successful business in the country.

. . . We must cut the size of the federal workforce.  On President Obama’s watch, we’ve added more than 140,000 federal workers.  The American people are increasingly working to support the government.  It should be the other way around.

I will reduce the federal payroll by at least 10%, saving $3.5 billion a year.  And we can save billions more by cutting extraneous federal contractors.

It’s not just the size of the federal workforce, it’s also the cost.  Since President Obama took office, the number of federal workers making $150,000 or more has doubled.

I will limit the salaries and benefits of workers in the public sector to those for workers in the private sector.  Public servants should not get a better deal than the taxpayers they work for.  By linking government pay with private sector pay, we will save as much as $47 billion a year.

There are still other ways to make the federal government work more efficiently and effectively.  We will attack the rampant fraud that exists in numerous government programs by enacting far stiffer penalties for those who steal from taxpayers.  Cutting improper payments in half can save more than $60 billion a year.  And we can save nearly $11 billion a year by repealing a political giveaway that protects unions from competition and drives up the cost of government contracts: it’s time to repeal Davis Bacon.

We will also find savings by combining certain government agencies and departments. For example, it makes very little sense that trade policies and programs are administered by so many offices in so many departments. Today, trade matters are housed in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce, the International Trade Commission, the International Trade Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of the Treasury. And guess who gathers our trade data? None of the above; it’s the Census Bureau. Too many chefs not only spoil the broth, they make it inedible and prohibitively expensive.  

In sum, I will make the federal government simpler, smaller, and smarter by eliminating programs, by sending programs back to the states, and by making government more productive. I will provide for the national defense, enforce our laws, preserve our safety net, and honor all our promises to our elderly. This is the right course for a moral nation.

Deficits do in fact matter. They matter if we want to convince entrepreneurs to start businesses. They matter if we want employers to start hiring. They matter if America is to avoid the shoals of economic calamity. They matter if America is to remain the shining city on a hill. To those who say that deficits don’t matter, to those who spend and borrow to win the praise of the short-sighted, we assert that you are in the wrong, and we are in the right.

. . . the future of Social Security and Medicare.  In their current form, these programs will go bankrupt.   I know that, you know that, and even our friends in the other party know that.  The difference is that I will be honest about strengthening and preserving them, and they won’t.

President Obama has failed to articulate a single serious idea to save Social Security.

I believe we can save Social Security with a few commonsense reforms.  First, there will be no change for retirees or those near retirement. No change.  Second, for the next generation of retirees, we should slowly raise the retirement age.  And, finally, for the next generation of retirees, we should slow the growth in benefits for those with higher incomes.

While President Obama has been silent on Social Security, his agenda for Medicare is disastrous.  He’s the only president in modern history who has cut Medicare for seniors—do not forget, it was President Obama who cut $500 billion from Medicare, not to preserve it or sustain it, but to pay for his vaunted Obamacare. And he put the future of Medicare in the hands of 15 unelected bureaucrats.  These bureaucrats have the power to enact further cuts to Medicare without congressional approval, even if those cuts overturn a law previously passed by Congress.  President Obama’s so-called Medicare reforms could lead to the rationing or denial of care for seniors on Medicare.

Unlike President Obama, our next president must protect Medicare, improve the program, and keep it sustainable for generations to come.  Several principles will guide my efforts.

First, Medicare should not change for anyone in the program or soon to be in it.  We should honor our commitments to our seniors.

Second, as with Social Security, tax hikes are not the solution.  We couldn’t tax our way out of unfunded liabilities so large, even if we wanted to.

Third, tomorrow’s seniors should have the freedom to choose what their health coverage looks like.  Younger Americans today, when they turn 65, should have a choice between traditional Medicare and other private healthcare plans that provide at least the same level of benefits. Competition will lower costs and increase the quality of healthcare for tomorrow’s seniors.

The federal government will help seniors pay for the option they choose, with a level of support that ensures all can obtain the coverage they need.  Those with lower incomes will receive more generous assistance.  Beneficiaries can keep the savings from less expensive options, or they can choose to pay more for a costlier plan.

Finally, as with Social Security, the eligibility age should slowly increase to keep pace with increases in longevity.

These ideas will give tomorrow’s seniors the same kinds of choices that most Americans have in their healthcare today.  The future of Medicare should be marked by competition, choice, and innovation—rather than bureaucracy, stagnation, and bankruptcy. Our path for the future of Social Security and Medicare is honesty and security, theirs is demagoguery and deception.

The plan I propose to make government simpler, smaller, and smarter represents the biggest fundamental change to the federal government in modern history.  It is a change we must make if the words “full faith and credit of the United States” are to mean anything at all. . . .

[BGuttman]

He's dancing around the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

All these things would not be necessary if we didn't have one tenth of our workforce (actually more like one sixth if we include discouraged workers) not being productive.  And offering them jobs at minimum wage as Greeters in Wal-Mart is not doing the trick.

We have people with valuable skills who are unable to make use of them.  And instead of finding a way to get more people to work, he's talking about increasing the unemployed by firing huge swaths of Government employees.

And let's not even talk about eliminating subsidies for the Arts.  I guess we really don't need to have any beauty in our lives; a Wall Street Banker walking around with thick wads of cash is probably beauty enough for him.

I guess he wants to create a form of "attrition" in the unemployed.  Since they will no longer be able to get health care, they will die of treatable diseases and reduce their number.  Sounds pretty good.  "Let them die and reduce the surplus population" (Ebenezer Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol").

[sly fox]

How radical, if at all, are Mitt's announced goals?

Should we repeal the "Great Society" programs of "entitlements"?

December 25, 2011, 9:00 pm
The Anti-Entitlement Strategy
By THOMAS B. EDSALL

Mitt Romney wants to stigmatize most “safety net” spending – the array of social insurance programs from Medicare to food stamps to unemployment compensation to free school lunches — as a form of welfare that is “cultivating government dependence.”

“Our growing welfare state is slated to cost $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years — that’s $72,000 a household,” Romney told voters in Bedford, N.H., on Dec. 20:

Once we thought ‘entitlement’ meant that Americans were entitled to the privilege of trying to succeed in the greatest country in the world. Americans fought and died to earn and protect that entitlement. But today the new entitlement battle is over the size of the check you get from Washington.

An entitlement, as the government defines it, “legally obligates the United States to make payments to any person who meets the eligibility requirements established in the statute that creates the entitlement.”

. . . Romney’s goal is to persuade swing voters of the imminent moral and material danger that Obama and the Democratic party pose. Here are three more lines from the Romney op-ed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-12-19/romney-us-economy-entitlements/52076252/1

Romney: What kind of society does America want?
By Mitt Romney

Over the past three years, Barack Obama has been replacing our merit-based society with an Entitlement Society.

If we continue on this course for another four years, we may pass the point of no return. We will have created a society that contains a sizable contingent of long-term jobless, dependent on government benefits for survival.

Government dependency can only foster passivity and sloth.

This is not the Republicanism of compassionate conservatism, far from it. In recent weeks, the former Massachusetts Governor has laid down a set of markers planting himself firmly on the right – just as Obama has begun to stake out a more leftward position. In outline, we are seeing the beginning of the general election campaign.

Romney’s adoption of an anti-entitlement strategy comes at a time when he appears to be looking up from the primaries toward Election Day, which suggests that his hard-line stance will be central to his campaign against Obama and not just a temporary maneuver. We are headed toward an ideological confrontation over the next 11 months of an intensity rarely seen in American political history.

[sly fox]

so much for Mitt the truth teller:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/03/10312358-did-obama-make-the-economy-worse-not-according-to-most-statistics

Did Obama make the economy worse? Not according to most statistics . . .

[BGuttman]

You know how to tell a Politician is lying?

His lips are moving

I know it's an old joke, but it's appropriate here.

Mitt doesn't care about the Poor (he just wants more baling wire and chewing gum holding the net together).

Newt wants to issue trampolines.  Maybe he thinks that if they bounce around enough they will either get sick and fall down or die.

Rick Santorum really just wants to take care of the people who "bought" him, and they ain't poor.

And Ron Paul really wants nothing to do with them; they're poor because of some reason and it's not his duty to anything to help them.

I think the pundits have it right.  Mitt Romney's biggest problem is Mitt Romney.  He has the same "rationality bypass" that afflicted Ronald Reagan (remember that statement about more air pollution coming from forests?).

[ronkny]

You know how to tell a Politician is lying?

His lips are moving

I know it's an old joke, but it's appropriate here.

Mitt doesn't care about the Poor (he just wants more baling wire and chewing gum holding the net together).

Newt wants to issue trampolines.  Maybe he thinks that if they bounce around enough they will either get sick and fall down or die.

Rick Santorum really just wants to take care of the people who "bought" him, and they ain't poor.

And Ron Paul really wants nothing to do with them; they're poor because of some reason and it's not his duty to anything to help them.

I think the pundits have it right.  Mitt Romney's biggest problem is Mitt Romney.  He has the same "rationality bypass" that afflicted Ronald Reagan (remember that statement about more air pollution coming from forests?).

And Obama only cares for those who worship him.

[SensitiveJohn]

I have never seen anybody worship Obama, but the bible-thumping simpletons are real.

[BGuttman]

And Obama only cares for those who worship him.

I'll bet he cares for you a lot more than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum do

[ronkny]

I have never seen anybody worship Obama, but the bible-thumping simpletons are real.

You mean the Communist Manifest simpletons.
http://churchofnobody.blogspot.com/2009/01/your-own-genuine-obama-shrine.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wstef/3006860764/

[BGuttman]

Thanks for the picture of the corner of your living room

[ronkny]

I'll bet he cares for you a lot more than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum do

They're politicians.  They all care about themselves only.  Don't be fooled.

[sly fox]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/29/romney-stumbles-over-question-about-gop-contraception-push/

his campaign says it was a "gotcha question" Mitt claims confusion, you be the judge:

. . . In the sit down interview with Ohio's ONN, Romney was asked whether he supported the Blunt measure.
 
"The issue of birth control, contraception, Blunt-Rubio is being debated, I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception," asked the reporter, Jim Heath. "Have you taken a position on it? He (Santorum) said he was for that, we'll talk about personhood in a second; but he's for that, have you taken a position?"
 
Romney responded: "I'm not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I'm not going there." . . .

[SensitiveJohn]

It's an outright flip flop.

[BGuttman]

It's all because Romney is trying to be what he isn't in order to pander to the Republican Wingnut Base.

He is even more weaselly than the Bush campaign painted Kerry back in 2004. 

I'll bet he's dizzy from all the shifting directions to try to match the wind.

[SensitiveJohn]

It will help Santorum if Republicans are still listening.  However, they like a winner, and if Romney is indeed the anointed son, it is better for him to start running for November.

[BGuttman]

The issue remains that Mormons are in the same boat Catholics were in 1928 (when Al Smith ran for President).  There are a lot of people who want "Anybody but Romney".  We have three candidates remaining in the ABR group (Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich).

I find this all quite distasteful and reminiscent of attitudes I thought we finally buried in the 1960s.  But I still see it mirrored in some of the voices here.

[SensitiveJohn]

Romney won the Hawaiian caucus, but he received less than 5,000 votes.  The voter turnout is so low that this is hardly democratic.

[ddickerson]

The issue remains that Mormons are in the same boat Catholics were in 1928 (when Al Smith ran for President).  There are a lot of people who want "Anybody but Romney".  We have three candidates remaining in the ABR group (Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich).

I find this all quite distasteful and reminiscent of attitudes I thought we finally buried in the 1960s.  But I still see it mirrored in some of the voices here.

What evidence do you have that everyone opposed to Romney is strictly on the grounds that he is a Mormon? I can tell you flat out that I don't trust him. He is not a conservative, even thoguh he tries to sound like one.

I wouldn't buy a cheap speaker that advertises that it sounds as good as a JBL for the same reason. If you want the sound of a JBL, that's what you will buy.

[BGuttman]

What evidence do you have that everyone opposed to Romney is strictly on the grounds that he is a Mormon? I can tell you flat out that I don't trust him. He is not a conservative, even thoguh he tries to sound like one.

...

I didn't say everyone  who hates Romney does so simply because he's a Mormon.  That's like saying everyone who hates Obama hates him because he's Black.

Some people (many of them Fundies) hate Romney for his religion.  Many others hate him because he's a "flip-flopper" (i.e. not a True Conservative ^TM ).  Same as there are some people who still have the attitudes about Blacks that were prevalent in 1950 and feel Obama is an "uppity N****".

Please don't extrapolate what I say.  You make it very difficult to hold a conversation.

[SensitiveJohn]

Okay, let's face the facts.  Romney would never have been governor of Massachusetts if he had the conservative credentials that the tea party nuts require.  However, he was certainly the conservative choice against the intellectually lacking stupid dolt that McCain was four years ago.  I'm just loving the rePubes running themselves into obscurity, at least nationally.  They'll still hold sway in the moronic parts of America.

[ddickerson]

I didn't say everyone  who hates Romney does so simply because he's a Mormon.  That's like saying everyone who hates Obama hates him because he's Black.

Ok, you said 'a lot', not 'everyone'.

Some people (many of them Fundies) hate Romney for his religion.

Please post your facts, don't just make the accusation.

Many others hate him because he's a "flip-flopper" (i.e. not a True Conservative ^TM ).  Same as there are some people who still have the attitudes about Blacks that were prevalent in 1950 and feel Obama is an "uppity N****".

'Hate' is a strong word for not wanting to vote for someone. Intersting that you link "his flip-flopping' to the 'same as'  people who have attitudes towards blacks. How do you make that connection? where are your facts for those accusations? Who has stated that Obama was a 'u.. n...'? again, please show your facts.

[ronkny]

Ok, you said 'a lot', not 'everyone'.

Please post your facts, don't just make the accusation.

'Hate' is a strong word for not wanting to vote for someone. Intersting that you link "his flip-flopping' to the 'same as'  people who have attitudes towards blacks. How do you make that connection? where are your facts for those accusations? Who has stated that Obama was a 'u.. n...'? again, please show your facts.

I've asked him for facts too but.........
There doesn't have to be any.  You say it enough and it becomes a "fact".

[BGuttman]

I've asked him for facts too but.........
There doesn't have to be any.  You say it enough and it becomes a "fact".

Look who's talking

Do you guys really  think that somebody who hates Blacks is going to admit it in today's society?  Or Mormons?

Then again, you two seem to be pretty strong against atheists and gays based on the stuff you post.

Maybe you should watch the movie "Gentleman's Agreement" to understand what implied prejudice is all about.

[ronkny]

Look who's talking

Do you guys really  think that somebody who hates Blacks is going to admit it in today's society?  Or Mormons?

Then again, you two seem to be pretty strong against atheists and gays based on the stuff you post.

Maybe you should watch the movie "Gentleman's Agreement" to understand what implied prejudice is all about.

Strongly against militant atheists.  Yes.  Strongly against gays. No.
Another example of an opinion put out there as fact.
"Please don't extrapolate what I say.  You make it very difficult to hold a conversation."
Sound familiar?
Lets not extrapolate, OK?

[ddickerson]

Do you guys really  think that somebody who hates Blacks is going to admit it in today's society?  Or Mormons?

Please post your proof of anyone who hates blacks or mormons. You keep making these accusations without providing and proof.

[Russ White]

 Romney would never have been governor of Massachusetts if he had the conservative credentials that the tea party nuts require. 

Reagan would never have been President if he had to have the conservative credentials the TEA Party nuts require.

[Baron von Bone]

Strongly against militant atheists.

Uh huh ... and upon what criteria do you differentiate between militant and non-militant atheists? What, according to you, makes an atheist militant, and how do you determine those conditions apply to a given atheist?

[Baron von Bone]

Do you guys really  think that somebody who hates Blacks is going to admit it in today's society?  Or Mormons?

Please post your proof of anyone who hates blacks or mormons. You keep making these accusations without providing and proof.

Do you really think you're prepared to use that standard equitably rather than just when it's convenient? Or is that kind of consistency just irrelevant--not even on your radar?
 
It's very telling (and very obvious ... well, it's obvious to anyone who's not playing your same game of self-deception, anyway) when you decide to become hyper-skeptical and when you opt for extreme credulity.

[ddickerson]

Do you really think you're prepared to use that standard equitably

I'm just using the 'same' standard that gets tossed around here 'all' the time. Are you really serious?

[Baron von Bone]

I'm just using the 'same' standard that gets tossed around here 'all' the time. Are you really serious?

Describe this standard then, and how it's applied.
 
We'll see if it's consistent with your objection to Bruce's comment (and if you consistently maintain and accept the same standard).

[ddickerson]

Describe this standard then, and how it's applied.
 

You're the one who brought it up, so you explain it.

[Baron von Bone]

Yeah ... that's what I thought.
 
 --
 
Do yous in here actually think an honest, rational discussion with someone like that is really on the menu?

[SensitiveJohn]

Strongly against militant atheists.  Yes.

Who are these militant atheists?  If they even exist, their membership must be small.

[BGuttman]

Baron, welcome to the Sisyphean Society.  Just watch out for the rock!

Who are these militant atheists?  If they even exist, their membership must be small.

I'll bet ronkny sees them everywhere!  They are the ones who want to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.  They want to eliminate prayers in Public School.  They want to eliminate shows of Christianity on town squares.  And they want to eliminate all Christmas music from the "Winter Holiday" concert.

They are asking that employers provide medical coverage for abortions and birth control pills.

Everywhere!

[ronkny]

Baron, welcome to the Sisyphean Society.  Just watch out for the rock!

I'll bet ronkny sees them everywhere!  They are the ones who want to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.  They want to eliminate prayers in Public School.  They want to eliminate shows of Christianity on town squares.  And they want to eliminate all Christmas music from the "Winter Holiday" concert.

They are asking that employers provide medical coverage for abortions and birth control pills.

Everywhere!

"I'll bet ronkny sees them everywhere!"
I thought you just said, "don't extrapolate".  Please don't extrapolate.

[Baron von Bone]

Baron, welcome to the Sisyphean Society.  Just watch out for the rock!

Just trying to illustrate the folly of trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't understand what discussion is and is fundamentally dishonest and evasive. His and Ronkny's dissembling and obfuscation, and their impressive capacity for willful self-deception, are never surprising to me, I'd just rather they not be so indulged because of the low character and ugly quality of the social climate their influence creates.
 
It's like trying to establish a toilet section in a pool. What's kind freakishly bizarre is that others still in the pool besides them seem too distracted with throwing floaters at each other to notice they've driven all swimmers away and soiled the pool so heavily, making it pretty useless to anyone who would like to actually do some swimming. They're happy because throwing floaters at others in the pool is what they consider swimming, but others who clearly know better have somehow gotten caught up in the ... activity. It's really very strange--kind of a psychological mystery, really.

[ronkny]

More oral diarrhea ^ for the the king of psuedo intellectualism. 

[Baron von Bone]

I'll bet ronkny sees them everywhere!

From the mountain of evidence he's provided, so far, it's only those atheists of whom he's aware. If they're silent and appropriately ashamed, he's okay with them, but if they're so rude as to actually express themselves, particularly if they're insolent about his religious franchise, they're clearly militant and angry and, well, all the things he feels when he's exposed to what they say--when he's forced to avoid those frightening ideas and suppress any part of them that he accidentally caught in his field of awareness.
 
Actually I don't think it's that complicated, to put it rather mildly. His "rhetoric" indicates pretty clearly that it boils down to his personal feelings, like pretty much every position and every opinion he posts--he feels, thereby he thinks, and he hasn't a clue as to the difference between them that the adult world recognizes and navigates. If he doesn't like you, therefore you're a villain (which should be a badge of honor to anyone with any sense of it). It seems this extreme level of self-absorption and general nastiness (adult terrible two-year-old...ism) is becoming an increasingly common character deficiency, not likely just in the US though it's become deafeningly shrill here of late, and he's just a relatively rare, basically archetypal case.

[ddickerson]

Just trying to illustrate the folly of trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't understand what discussion is and is fundamentally dishonest and evasive. His and Ronkny's dissembling and obfuscation, and their impressive capacity for willful self-deception, are never surprising to me, I'd just rather they not be so indulged because of the low character and ugly quality of the social climate their influence creates.
 
It's like trying to establish a toilet section in a pool. What's kind freakishly bizarre is that others still in the pool besides them seem too distracted with throwing floaters at each other to notice they've driven all swimmers away and soiled the pool so heavily, making it pretty useless to anyone who would like to actually do some swimming. They're happy because throwing floaters at others in the pool is what they consider swimming, but others who clearly know better have somehow gotten caught up in the ... activity. It's really very strange--kind of a psychological mystery, really.

Nothing new here.

Bruce, feel free to make all the Baseless Accusations you wish, and go back to your SS (Sisyphean Society), because even if it is possible, the induced happiness in your mind must be a fleeting experience, because a man must wake up, occasionally, in order to face his blatant reality again.

[Baron von Bone]

Nothing new here.

Nope ... unfortunately ... not until there's some indication that your thinking habits have changed, since that's what I was describing. Maybe this is kind of a preliminary lead-in to a first step toward improvement. We can only hope.
 
It would appear you've yet again demonstrated the kinds of problems I was describing--nothing new indeed. Seems you forgot I was describing what your posting habits indicate about the integrity of your thinking processes. In other words, you're right, there's nothing new there, for my description to change your posting patterns would have to indicate a change in your thinking patterns (hopefully for the better), and you're just recognizing that hasn't happened. I know, it's hard to follow a line of even your own thinking more than a step or two when you're all about ducking and dodging rather than staying on track.

[ddickerson]

 not until there's some indication that your thinking habits have changed,

Don't hold your breath waiting for me to change my 'thinking habits'. There is no way that I would allow myself to become totally bankrupt enough to think that liberalism is a legitimate thought process.

[Baron von Bone]

Interesting ...
 
I mention improving his thinking habits and he presumes liberalism would be the result, and that it's a thought process.

[Russ White]

Interesting ...
 
I mention improving his thinking habits and he presumes liberalism would be the result, and that it's a thought process.

Indeed.

[ronkny]

Improving thinking habits means, to a lib, "think like I do or you're an idiot".  It's the "mob mentality"  as described in Ann Coulter's book.

[sanfranboner]

Mods, please delete.

[SensitiveJohn]

Is this a joke?

[sanfranboner]

Is this a joke?

John, that's a good question.  I shouldn't have posted this without verifying it and I feel a bit stupid.  After researching it, it appears that it was a satire, and I'm going to delete the contents of that post.

[sly fox]

mitt has publicly announced that the President is not a traitor:

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/crying-treason/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Today in Ohio, Mitt Romney said he does not think President Obama should be tried for treason.

That’s a relief. But it raises the question of why Mr. Romney did not say that a bit earlier, when a woman at a town hall event made that very suggestion: “We have a president right now who is operating outside the Constitution,” she said. “And I do agree he should be tried for treason.”  She closed by asking Mr. Romney what he would do to “restore our Constitution.”

She was referring to Mr. Obama’s recent use of executive orders and interim appointments to counteract Congressional obstruction. The Republicans have been making a big deal out of Mr. Obama’s behavior, even though it’s not unconstitutional and they didn’t seem to care that President George W. Bush had a rather robust understanding of executive privilege (remember warrantless wiretapping?).
 
Mr. Romney ignored the treason comment. . . .

At a rope line later on, reporters asked Mr. Romney if he agreed with the woman. “No, no, no, of course not,” he replied. Of course not. How silly of them to even ask!