Previous 11 - 20 Next
Romney lost because he would not repudiate his health insurance legislation in Massachusetts. So people figured there was no point in voting for him. Had he come out strongly against his health insurance plan he would have won. End of story.
In response to:

'Me Too' Republicans

FreeThinkerGuy Wrote: Mar 27, 2013 6:22 PM
Will we please stop holding up Ronald Reagan as a bastion of conservative principles. There has been no true conservative in the white house since Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s. Reagan raised taxes 2 times, never even considered balancing the budget, punted big time on actually reforming soc security from a ponzi scheme to a properly funded pension plan, and was the first of the great amnesty promoters. Please don't tell me he busted the budget to stop the Russians. That's all been debunked (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3580).
Romney lost, pure and simple, because he didn't repudiate his failed "Romneycare" plan. Had he come out and stated that, as a governor it was his responsibility to attempt something, that is what states do, and that it failed miserably, he could have done something useful, even if he had lost. I believe that conviction, along with a (moderately) better economic plan, would have allowed him to win and nobody would be saying the repub party is in decline. As it is, he constantly supported his plan and caused enormous harm to the country as we shall see in the coming years.
Will someone please tell me exactly what Bush 2 did that caused the credit crisis? I grant that starting two wars (of which Gore/Kerry would have started at least 1) causes some depletion of the treasury and a "war" tax should have been created to pay for it. The Medicare drug bill was another fiasco that hurt the country and could have caused a standard recession. Tax receipts that were $2.0 trillion in 2000 were $2.5 trillion in 2008 so don't blame the tax rate reductions. None of that explains the credit crisis and the mess we are in now. So, again, please tell me what Bush 2 did that caused the housing bubble and subsequent collapse?
There is a seduction in Ann's suggestion. However, I fear that the resulting severe recession and resultant expanding "inequality" will be used as a pretext for even higher taxes and then the people included will be those over $100k or something similar. From my perspective, a recession is already built into the cake due to the health insurance scheme (aka Obamacare).
In response to:

Parting Company

FreeThinkerGuy Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 12:20 AM
Another great column that in this day and age could only be written by someone whose skin tone is dark, which is unfortunate. Had the north allowed the south to secede, the south would have been forced to end slavery because it was inefficient and they couldn't compete w/ non-slave states and other countries. Other countries were able to end slavery without civil wars yet we didn't. Lincoln's decision cost the country enormously then and for 100 years thereafter. "A man convinced against his will is of the same persuasion still."
Hurrah for the obvious! When will the pundits understand that Romney got fewer votes than McCain! That's awful. Romney needed to repudiate his health insurance scheme, tell the nation why it failed, and he at least would have done a good service even if he had lost. Instead he ran a campaign that accomplished nothing. Another 4 years down the crapper.
People don't realize that the Repubs helped elect OBAMA! by forcing him to keep the tax rates the same. Had they been raised, the economy would have really been in the dumper and he would have had to go farther than he did and pin a pedophile label on Romney to win. Also, all the OBAMA!care taxes start next year. Pretty smart of him to do that. Raising income taxes along w/ the OBAMA!care taxes spells doom for the economy. The question is, will people recognize the cause or only clamor for more fish?
In response to:

Is IMF Short for I Must Fail?

FreeThinkerGuy Wrote: Oct 13, 2012 1:46 PM
This whole "austerity" gig is misleading. Will someone point to an actual country that has reduced real spending (i.e. they were spending $X billions last year and are now spending $X - Y billions this year). Taxing more isn't "austerity" it's stupidity. Biden inadvertently let it slip that he understands this fact when he commented that removing American troops forces the Iraqis and Afghans to step up. Well, Helloooo! He made that statement because he wasn't protecting or hoping to get votes from a constituency. "Removing" taxes allows people to "step up" and become more self reliant thereby reducing the perceived need for govt action/intervention. Remember, a govt dollar spent is a private dollar taxed.
Interesting that Clinton himself said that raising taxes was a mistake. You may remember that Clinton and the Congress also cut the cap gains tax in 1997 (do I hear a liberal "gasp?"). Regardless, Clinton happened to preside when the first Repub Congress in over 40 years came to power and when the internet boom started. You may have forgotten about the little crash that started under Clinton's watch at the end of that boom resulting in Bush seeking tax rate reductions, which eventually resulted in the largest tax collections in US history in 2007. Better to get your facts straight. P S- don't misunderstand - Bush was an awful prez. In fact, he governed like a Dem.
Mike, Your investment mix isn't working, so far. Some day you will be right. Then you can say "I told you so."
Previous 11 - 20 Next