Letters to the Editor


August 24, 2011


To the editor:

At the Lynn Jenkins appearance on Friday, many Lawrencians pleaded for compromise. They should have saved their breath.

Rep. Jenkins, along with 234 other Republicans in the House, has signed the Grover Norquist “Tax Protection Pledge,” committing never to increase taxes. This unyielding position is the principal obstacle to the adoption of a meaningful deficit reduction plan.

The Norquist pledge is designed to protect the super rich, who, as Warren Buffett has observed, pay income tax at low rates — rates much lower than those paid by many Lawrencians.

Jenkins has chosen to cast her lot with the super rich. Don’t expect compromise while she is in office.


uncleandyt 3 years, 8 months ago

Let's vote her out. Grover is a lobbyist. His silly pledge is not binding.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 8 months ago

"Where is the politician who has not promised to fight to the death for lower taxes- and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible?" - Barry Goldwater

lunacydetector 3 years, 8 months ago

the preceeding message was brought to you by billionaires warren buffett, george soros and moveon.org, because only billionaires pay more taxes if forced, to volunteer additional money, the answer is, "Nein!"

translation: taxes must be raised on the little people, warren buffett says so.

kernal 3 years, 8 months ago

lunacy, like many of us, your reading comprehension skills aren't at their best at 4:01am.

Here's Warren Buffet's op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

lunacydetector 3 years, 8 months ago

i'm trying to get the koch brothers to pay me to post on this website, like george soros pays editors of major news organizations to tow the liberal company line and most likely he pays some of the fashionable liberals who post on this website and others.

...though, i don't know how to contact the koch bros.

Smarmy_Schoolmarm 3 years, 8 months ago

"Toe" the liberal company line....

You think of me as fashionable? Me in my old tie dyed clothes and hippie beads? Why thank you L!

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

What is this I don't even?

No, seriously, where did you pull that meaning out of the above statement?

Abdu Omar 3 years, 8 months ago

Don't vote for an incumbent in any case! We have seen what they will do and I don't like it. It is time to get someone into office who is for the people. Every time we vote a straight ticket or op for the party we choose, there are consequenses. We need to take our country back from the lobbyists and special interest groups. I have been saying this since 1992 when Clinton was elected. We must rule ourselves, not let this country be run by lobbyists.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 8 months ago

The letter writer has it backwards. Congresswoman Jenkins has chosen to cast her lot with those who understand the critical need to reduce spending before any tax increases are considered. History has shown quite clearly that Congress will never raise taxes and use that tax money to reduce the deficit. It will only spend it.

Members of both political parties have been wildly out of control in their spending habits for decades. We cannot continue simply to print money. We must radically curb federal spending until our fiscal house is in order. If we don't, future generations will be forced to give most of their earned income to the federal government simply to pay interest on our massive accumulated debt.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

The problem currently, is that more and more of the wealth in this country is being funneled into financial and speculative instruments rather than being reinvested as infrastructure or wages. The multiplier factor of these financial instruments are what is currently driving inflation.

We have allowed 'supply-side' theory to push taxes down, while following a Keynsian approach to driving the economy, and are surprised that this is pulling the country apart.

Further, since all of these financial instruments are taxed at 15% not 40% (because they are not income) the top 10% of the country controls 50% of the wealth, and contributes less and less to the society that makes their wealth possible. This concentration of capital in speculative markets means that the money cycle has stopped flowing. There must be measures taken to move that capital back toward the middle class, and increase demand, to return America to Prosperity.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

Yes, the federal reserve increases the money supply, as does a fractional banking system, and returns on speculation that are not tied to any real asset, but are purely a product of the markets themselves.

I should have said: The multiplier factor of these, AND OTHER financial instruments are what is currently driving inflation.

My appologies on that.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

From Banks, where do YOU think it comes from?

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

Sorry, let me ammend the response:

that money, comes from corporations paying dividends and from the "loosers" in whatever financial transaction takes place. it is by necessity a zero sum game.

Where does that money come from? From profits invested in financial markets as opposed to re-investment and wages.

Where does that money(profit) come from? From products being purchased. Who purchases them, consumers.

Now, how does that money get from those financial instruments back into the hands of consumers?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 8 months ago

Per usual, you ignore 2/3 of reality while waxing endlessly about how perfect your imaginary world would be.

Jimo 3 years, 8 months ago

When do you plan to stop sniffing your fingers?

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

No, the class warfare ploy is just starting.

But really, to call it warfare implies a conscious decision, and reasoned tactics. What we have here is people being ignorant of the long term consequences of their actions, plus rejecting the reality in front of them and substituting their own.

I do not expect that taxes will be placed only on the super rich. I fully expect the government to tax everyone somehow, through property, sales, or income taxes. I AM envious of their money. I want nice stuff. And if we all decide we want it bad enough, then we grab torches and pitchforks and we go get it. I would like to see it not get there.

I also have seen what government does with money. I drove on roads up to a public university, where I attended classes. I saw police enforcing laws that keep people safe, rather than vigilantism.

But, in your second paragraph you make a mistake. Money that is retained by the wealthy is not necessarily spent or invested. Capital is more and more often put in speculative financial instruments. These provide a quicker, higher return than re-investing in wages or business infrastructure. And, it keeps that capital in the markets, and out of the hands of the middle class. This has the effect of reducing the consumption ability of the middle class, which leads to a stagnant economy.

This has happened before, and apparently we didn't learn from it then.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

Uhhhh . . .

From wikipedia:

"In a financial context, the terms "speculation" and "investment" are actually quite specific. For instance, although the word "investment" is commonly used to mean any act of placing money in a financial vehicle with the intent of producing returns over a period of time, most ventured money—including funds placed in the world's stock markets—is technically not investment, but speculation.

. . . . There are also some financial vehicles that are, by definition, speculation. For instance, trading commodity futures contracts, such as for oil and gold, is, by definition, speculation. Short selling is also, by definition, speculative.

Financial speculation can involve the trade (buying, holding, selling) and short-selling of stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, collectibles, real estate, derivatives, or any valuable financial instrument to attempt to profit from fluctuations in its price irrespective of its underlying value

I do in fact know the difference, thank you.

If a business takes their profits and purchases new equipment and factories, and/or hires new workers to increase production or to innovate in their field, that is "investment".

Taking those profits, and then entering a specualtive market on the price of a stock or index of a market does not contribute to the overall economy. If any returns from that speculation are put back into further speculative ventures, that capital ceases to have an effect in the "real" economy.

Which is what my original point was all about.

An accumulation of capital in financial markets rather than in tangible assets or worker wages results in a break of the flow of capital.

Furthermore, are you saying that if we go to a system where everyone has to pay for the upkeep and maintanence of all roads that border or are on his property, and may chose not to build such roads, that we would have a perfect system?

And are you saying that if we did away with police, and went to an every man for himself system, that violence would dissapear?

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

I think the money goes into financial markets and assets that are not tied into real world production.

In other words, into bank accounts and hedge funds.

Where do YOU think it goes?

Also, nirvana fallacy?

"I've seen those police enforcing something--it wasn't the law, but more like brutality. You sure are misled easily."

Hi, Pot? Kettle. Nice to meet you.

You insisted that government roads, schools, and police force were imperfect to the point of being "bad" rather than a "good". But yet you offer no direct coutner points of your own.

What your statement says to me is: I have seen the product of your government, and it is shoddy work and police brutality. You are a fool for believeing in it.

So, fine, hwo about this for a response:

I am not a fool, sir. I believe that the system we have is better than anything else I have seen or read about in history. How would you propose for our roads to be built and our social peace be kept? Do you feel that private actions and interests would produce a system markedly better than the one we currently live in? If so, How?

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

No, I stated that I had seen government use capital to a good end. YOU are the one who then made the statement that what you saw was police brutality.

I compared a good, and you took the ultimate extreme negative as an example, attempting to discredit my position. When I then pointed out that the opposite extreme to the point you made is utopia, you cry foul, ignoring the underlying point.

If you want to argue by formal rules of logic, we can in fact do that. But let's be consistent.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

No, it does disapear into the market. At what point in that cycle does it go to build a factory, research a new product, or pay a wage?

That is in fact where that money came from. From the production, through labor, of tangible assets. Now, it keeps getting bottled up into financial assets.

The money moves up, but never comes back down. This can be seen when you look at the accumulation of wealth in the upper tiers. If the economy was growing evenly, the relative income distribution would remain the same. It is not.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago


How many miles of paved roads were there in the US in 1900? 144


How many miles currently? 55,650,943

I read a bit of the book you linked to. There are so many problems with what he lays out, even in his introduction, that it boggles the mind. Let me go with a few highlights.

He attributes the 40,000 traffic deaths a year to mismanagement of the roads, not drunken or inattentive driving, claiming that privatization would solve the problems and save lives.

For over 40,000 people die on the nation’s roadways every year (see appendix), and you or a loved one might one day join this horrid list.

That is such a blatant appeal to fear and emotion he should be ashamed of himself. Further, 40,000 people a year die in traffic related accidents, while 50,000 people die from influenza and pneumonia. And 112,000 from being overweight. But that number of deaths has not put the fast food industry out of buisness. So I don't agree with his argument that private enterprise will show much more concern for it's customers.

Second, the claim that road choice is an act of free market, and that people can simply "choose a different road" if the repair on one becomes shoddy, is also flawed. There are only a finite number of ways that one can take from A to B. If we constrain these to anything with realistic expectations of travel time, the number shrinks further. There is, in other words, a finite supply. Free market pricing does not work in these situations. Can you imagine what would happen if one company owned both K-10 and the I-70 routes between Lawrence and KC? Oh, you don;t like the way we fixed our roads? well, you can take a different route. Looking up on Google maps, a route back to Lawrence from KC without using either of these roads adds at least an hour to the travel time.

Third, If we operate on the basis that large companies bought the roads for profit, then in order to maximize returns, they must find the optimal balance between maintenance costs and customer complaints. And trust me, that balance is nowhere near as wonderful a picture as Mr. Block would like to think.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

As for the police, have you ever had any extensive dealings with private security companies? The idea of turning full control of civil peacekeeping over to mil-spec does not fill me with hope and confidence, to be honest.

And really, I do like their service, therefore I do pay for it, if with a small twinge, through my taxes. If YOU don't like it, you are welcome to found your own city and run things your way.

Also, did you just make the argument that child labor laws are a bad thing? That somehow a minimum wage law contributes to poverty? How does that work? I guarantee that if Wal-mart could get away with paying us 2.50 an hour, that would have already happened.

And really, I think the poor were forced to live in ghettos and slums long before we had zoning laws. But it used to be that way because if you tried to sleep in a nice part of town, the simply beat you until you left.

Jimo 3 years, 8 months ago

Gold, blah, blah, blah, self regulating markets, blah, blah, blah, Ron Paul, blah, blah, blah.

Your mother called. She wants to know when you're moving out of her basement.

jafs 3 years, 8 months ago

I wonder if this means she'll support continuing the payroll tax reductions?

Somehow I doubt it - Republicans seem to be against tax increases except for that one these days.

David Reynolds 3 years, 8 months ago

The writer needs to do their homework prior to writing critically of Lynn Jenkins. What about President Obama? He appointed GE Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt as chair of his outside panel of economic advisors: the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Jeff Immelt is conducting mass layoffs @ GE & just entered into a venture with the chinese to build airliners in China. Besides financing a Chinese Airliner to compete with US Boeing, he also has to reveal/give all avionics & engine technology GE has to the Chinese. The latter is a price companies pay to do business in China. That will help US jobs & competitiveness!

Yeah, Lynn Jenkins is patriotically guilty of trying to fix our deficit problem. Obama & Immelt are unpatriotically guilty of working against the US economy, exacerbating our debt & jobs problem. OH, did I mention GE did not pay any taxes last year after making $14 Billion.Too bad the writer doesn't take a broader view of reality.

Brock Masters 3 years, 8 months ago

Good post. You don't see GE/China venture widely reported.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 8 months ago

Sure, Jeff Immelt and GE suck. But that doesn't negate the fact the Jenkins is doing the bidding for billionaires, not for the rest of us.

madameX 3 years, 8 months ago

You're right. I hate it when someone write a LTE and focuses on a single, narrow topic instead of waxing on and on and on about everything in the whole universe that anyone who might read it might have an opinion on.

Non-sarcastic translation: The letter is about a particular pledge made by a particular legislator. You're off on a pretty unrelated tangent.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 8 months ago

Lynn Jenkins is guilty of trying to fix our deficit, you say? I bet you didn't know she voted to continue spending tax dollars sponsoring NASCAR race cars, did you? House Amedment 92. She also voted to keep troops in Libya...She's voted to increase military expenditures every chance she gets... How is that fiscally responsible?

Hey Kool-aid! OH YEAH!

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 8 months ago

Right, right....I meant to keep funding the intervention in Libya.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 8 months ago

You get the point though. She sure doesn't seem to be trying very hard to fix the deficit.

usnsnp 3 years, 8 months ago

What is funny, is how Republican politicians take Kansans for granted. We will not see who ever is nominated to represent the Republican party of president, they just assume that Kansans will vote for them. Our congressional represenatives will only for the most part talk to the people that donate money to then, they assume that Kansans will vote for them no matter what they do. It sure feels good to be taken for granted.

Shane Garrett 3 years, 8 months ago

The top 10% pay 90% of the government tax and the government has over spent, and this president has over spent more in two years than the last four presidents. Who is going to tell me that if I go into debt, that I should be able to spend more to get out of debt? How does that work? And when did a poor person ever create a job or have money to invest in a project. Could someone help me understand how the socialist economy that the new hope and change president is suppose to work? Because the president does not seem to know!

CountyResident 3 years, 8 months ago

Your statement that this president has over spent more in two years than the last four prisidents is way off. The last four presidents: Reagan, Bush I, Clinton & Bush II added over $10 trillion to our debt. That amounts to over 75% of our entire national debt.

Source: Wikipedia-National Debt by US Presidential Term.

I do not agree that rich people create jobs. New products, ideas and demand create jobs. Most of the demand comes from the middle class. Many of the new products and ideas come from people who are not rich. They become rich afterwards.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

The top 10% paid approx 75%, actually.


What's a really interesting related but often overlooked fact, though, is that the same top 10% controls about 80% of the financial wealth of the country, while the bottom 50% controls about 2.5% of the financial wealth.


Also, the economics of a country do not work like your personal finances. They are by far and away not the same thing. But if you would like an analogy, think about it like this:

If you want to increase your personal income, you need to get a better job. In order to dfo that, you need to get some school or training. In order to THAT, you have to spend money for improvement. If you don't have that money, you can borrow it, but you will have to pay that money back from your future increased wages.

Does THAT make sense?

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

Well, how would you suggest increasing your personal income then?

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

So your assuming that there is sufficient demand to make sales a viable option. You are also assuming that there is a balance between the labor and job markets.

But what would you do in our current situation where retail sales are down currently? Most of the people I know in sales are currently back in school getting computer or electronics degrees.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

How does macro thinking NOT apply? When I went back to school, I looked at the state of the world, and made a decision based on macro thinking, that an english degree would not be a good choice of investment. If you are going to switch careers, long term planing should most definitely be a part of your analysis.

But let me ask a different question:

I am assuming that you consider liquidating assets and savings during the startup time to be different that getting into debt?

usnsnp 3 years, 8 months ago

Then with the Banks and industry having trillions of dollars in cash, why are they not creating jobs in the United States, Forgot american workers expect to work for more than a dollar a hour and expect a few benifits. How about the person that gets layed off and six months the company advertises for an opening for the same job, layed off employee applies for the job asking for the same pay that he was receiving when he was layed off, never even gets a answer to his application.

oldvet 3 years, 8 months ago

Unless you are bound by union seniority for layoffs, you usually lay off people from the bottom of your performance ranking... the kind you just might not want back.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

Not really. Nowadays they go not by performance, which is subjective and can be fought and sued over (even in non-union environments), they usually go by attendance, which is objective and they can then fight unemployment benefits.

And if they need to, they make the attendance policy stricter and stricter until they can lay people off.

Job performance rarely has anything to with it anymore.

Jimo 3 years, 8 months ago

A. It's not increasing taxes. It's ending the temporary tax cut and returning to the standard tax rates (like we had when Democrats were balancing budgets annually).

B. The only people talking about immediate tax increases are Republicans. They wish to end the payroll tax cut on middle class workers.

Jimo 3 years, 8 months ago

Meanwhile, outside of the Partier bubble:

J.P. Morgan says “fiscal tightening” will worsen the “negative feedback loop” hindering economic growth. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/08/18/656416/the-bbb-recovery/

Greg Ip notes of the GOP's new voodoo economics, “A shift toward fiscal and monetary austerity in the United States in 1937 helped prolong the depression. Fiscal tightening helped push Japan back into recession in 1997.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-republicans-new-voodoo-economics/2011/08/18/gIQAxhyRQJ_print.html The former Chief Economist for the U.S. Department of Labor argues for more stimulus. http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/president-to-rollout-jobs-package-next-month/

The Economic Policy Institute estimates the GOP plans to raise middle class taxes would cost an additional 1,000,000 jobs to be lost: http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/whats_missing_from_the_debt_ceiling_debate_jobs

The last Secretary of the Treasury to balance the federal budget points out that the #1 way to reduce government debt in the long run is to induce economic growth in the short run by investment in jobs. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/13/larry-summers-op-ed-stimulus-jobs_n_875804.html

Bruce Bartlett, a policy advisor to Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp, writes, “the important thing is for policy makers to stop obsessing about debt and focus instead on raising aggregate demand. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/its-the-aggregate-demand-stupid/

The chief investment officers of the nation's largest bond fund (the exact sort of people who would worry about gov't debt, if anyone should), insist that laissez faire approaches are incapable of doing the job: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/spend-now-save-later-bond-fund-leaders-say/

And on and on and on.

Nonetheless, the nutjobs refuse to listen and insist “as every economist and every rating agency has made clear, getting our deficit under control is the first step to help get our economy growing again and to create jobs." My reply: what's the name of a single credible economist that says this?

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago


Have you read "Aftershock" by Robert Reich. Brilliant analysis of our current situation.

Simply stated, you cannot increase aggregate demand when income is stagnant for lower and middle class, while financial capital condenses int he upper percentile.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

Made up?

Demand is also affected by the ability to purchase. If prices are not falling relative to wages, then demand will not increase.

You have to consider the ability to purchase, or consume, of the population as a whole. If the price of a car remains steady (adjusted for inflation), but wages are falling (adjusted for inflation) then you would not expect to see sales of cars increase, would you?

I would agree that as prices lower, demand increases, generally. But price is not just simply a dollar value.

Not to reduce to the absurd, but consider the extreme case:

Cars cost $5. However, no one has any capital to spend.

What is the demand?

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

Ah yes, I forgot, your of the Austrian School, yes?

Of course human action is done on an individual basis. Everyone decides on their own what time to leave for work and what route to get there. But we still have traffic, and that traffic flow can be analysed and patterns can be found.

Further, even though every person has the freedom to act, they generally respond with predictabel strategies, with outlying actions always possible.

If your going to reject the idea that we can empirically observe and make rpedictions about the world around us, then you might as well throw all of modern science out the window.

"Supply creates its own demand."

. . . the whole of the costs of production must necessarily be spent in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, on purchasing the product."

No. We have financial markets that did not exist, or not to the extent that they did, when this debate amongst economists was started.

Further, with increases in productivity due to technology, there is less "human" capital required in production, and therefore, there must be less demand from the creation of said products. But we have not decreased the number of workers, just the number employed.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

But Economics IS like physics in that theories may be tested by observation. This is the essence of science. You make a prediction, and then see if the real world holds up to your prediction.

von Mises is attempting to extrapolate out the actions of large groups based upon the actions of a rational individual. And that won't work.

You have to look at pressures and forces that are affecting a group. Then look at how those forces affect different groups of people differently. Not all people will react the same way to the same stimuli. Further, you have people that will make what appears to be an irrational action, if they think it will result in some gain to them.

Wages did keep up with productivity up until about 1975.


After that, wages versus output has been steadily declining. You would expect that, if this was the case, that further capital would accumulate in the upper tiers of society, and in fact this is what we are seeing.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

Your hopeless. Straw man? No, that's what he's DOING. Your entire system is based off the idea that:

Well, the system is to complex to analyse, so we have to think of what one person would do, and ten think hat would happen if everyone did that.

Further, in the same post, you stated that is was impossible to isolate a single economic factor and it's effect. But then you want to insinuate that, in the 1970's, there was a single event or policy that changed everything.

Do you really not see the contradiction?

Because, I think everyone else is right. You are not worth talking to.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

"You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into"

And that is your problem, you think you know, because you've read 30 books by the same author or school of thought. You can parrot back their weak arguments, and have read up on all the logical and rhetorical tricks, so you can cry foul to anyone who makes a point you don't like. (PS: that in and of itself, is a fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument... )

It's a shame really, because looking over your profile, we like the same books and shows. It would have been interesting to hang out, have good discussions. But no, you are right and everyone else is wrong, and you have mastered the craft of sophistry to convince yourself of this in the face of any fact or argument presented to you.

You have not truly thought about these things of which you speak. I can tell because I used to think some of them myself. But then I realized, the world is far more nuanced and complex , that people are far more devious and clever, than to ever allow the catch all phrase "personal liberty" to allow human society to function as an anarchist collective.

It only exists on paper, and only truly works on paper. when you take the real world into account, the theory breaks, and you have to compromise and make things work.

But this was the entire point of this debate in the first place, and it is one that you obviously missed.

Good day sir.

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

Bad examples that only work if you ignore a hundred other facts about what really happened. Your knowledge of history and what the world was really like 150 years ago staggers the mind.

Yes, we did try and do things by private enterprise, and it did NOT work. That is why we changed things, so that they WOULD.

Private Security? Like the Pinkerton Detective Agency? Any private police force is beholden to the people who pay them, not to any sense of justice or law. If those people begin to, say, pay their workers less wages, or have unsafe working conditions, and those workers try to organize and keep their standard of living, that private police force will be called in to FORCE people back to work. This has happened before. I imagine it would happen again.

Private Roads? Like the Dulles Greenway? http://dullesgreenway.com/toll-rates-2/ By my estimate, the toll rates on that section of road are $5 for 14 miles. Do you think that would be a comparable fee for all roads under a private system?

Private education? We already HAVE private education. But if your talking about not paying taxes to support public education if you don't use it, I would almost agree with you. Except that, if as a business owner, I want a well educated labor pool to hire from, it is in my best interests to ensure that people are educated. Further, as a human, I believe that it is in the best interests of society as a whole that people receive a basic education. I am willing to pay for it.

SO, what are your examples, specifically, where these private systems succeed over public systems?

Larry McGlinn 3 years, 8 months ago

Where was compromise from the Democrats when we were getting Obama care stuffed down our throats? They were in control of the presidency and both houses of the congress - as I recall they reminded the Republicans that "we won - it's our way or the highway"!!!!!!!

Carol Bowen 3 years, 8 months ago

Wasn't Obamacare modeled on a Republican proposal and Mitt Romney's efforts in his home state?

Carol Bowen 3 years, 8 months ago

Wasn't Obamacare modeled on a Republican proposal and Mitt Romney's efforts in his home state?

Larry McGlinn 3 years, 8 months ago

Where was compromise from the Democrats when we were getting Obama care stuffed down our throats? They were in control of the presidency and both houses of the congress - as I recall they reminded the Republicans that "we won - it's our way or the highway"!!!!!!!

jafs 3 years, 8 months ago

The first is incomplete, and misleading.

Stu Clark 3 years, 8 months ago

Absolutely not! Compromises let the single payer option or Medicare For Everyone disappear. You're complaining that the insurance company benefit plan that was written into law was "shoved down our throats"? What was shoved down our throats was a plan that fell far short of what should have been achieved because of repub intransigency.

Jay Keffer 3 years, 8 months ago

The usual demonizing of the "rich" or "wealthy". Our government spends too much, period

As for taxes, all citizens should be subjected to any tax that is levied. The tax code is supposed to be for raising enough revenue to pay for essential government services, nothing more & nothing less. The tax code is not supposed to be used to punish some citizens and reward others.

On a side note, Mr. Buffet uses government power to his advantage. He supports things like high taxes and the death tax because he benefits from it. His companies swoop in and purchase businesses that can not afford the death tax and then turns around and makes big profits. Mr. Buffet doesn't make most of his money via "income" and thus income tax raises don't affect him. He is no one we should look to for tax policy recommendations.

The problem with Buffet's plan is that it doesn't come close to solving the deficit. The gov't could take all the money from the super rich and it would only put a slight dent in the red ink. Buffet and his buddies, and the gov't know they have to raise taxes on everyone and especially those making more than $100,000 to really have an impact. Get ready, that is what is coming.

What we should do is scrap our entire federal tax code and implement either a 10% flat income tax OR (not both) a 10% national sales tax that would apply to all citizens with no exceptions. We should then cap government spending, enact term limits on Congress and make government live within a modest revenue stream where it would have to focus on essential & Constitutional services.

God Bless America.

Bob Forer 3 years, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

gudpoynt 3 years, 8 months ago

and now, for the greatest "straw man" of all....

Imply that anyone who finds inadequacy with your Libertarian world view is a statist, and then decry statism.

Then accuse your detractors of making "straw man" arguments.

or try this one....

Point to an example of negative consequences of government intervention and extrapolate it to all instances of government intervention. Attribute any positive consequence of government intervention not to the government action itself, but to the free market that resists it.

And accuse your detractors of making "straw man" arguments.

or try this one...

Use limited understanding of formal logic to "disprove" those who actually posses a better understanding.

And then, of course, accuse your detractors of making "straw man" arguments.

And display your arrogance by questioning their comprehension and reading skills. ... LO, you have single-handedly catapulted "straw man" to the most misused phrase in the LJWorld forums. .... Now, tell me how my criticism of your B.S. debating tactics is nothing but a "straw man" itself, and merely validates your arrogant dismissals all the more.

Better yet, prove it with your mad logic skillz :-)

Scribeoflight 3 years, 8 months ago

I know. It's a very bad habit I have, fighting with trolls. It's a form of stress relief, kinda. Plus, well, at work, people talk about the Kardashians. I need my fix of something resembling intelligent debate.

Oh well, thanks for the heads up everyone. Back to Calculus.

tbaker 3 years, 8 months ago

If we stay on our current economic tragectory for the next 18 months, Mr. Obama will go down in history as having the worst job record of any president in the modern era. Its not fair to make a President personally responsible for every lost job in country, but like every president before him, he will be judged by what hapens on his watch.

Growing the federal government and spending huge sums of money the country has to borrow obviously doesn't work. Compromise happens when one party realizes they are not entirely right and can benefit by adopting the ideas of another. Mr. Obama would be wise to listen to those who oppose his big government/deficit spending approach.

"No, gentlemen, we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong, as far as I am concerned, somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…"

FDR's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, Jr

jafs 3 years, 8 months ago

Neither party is entirely right on most anything, in my view.

That's why it would be best to work together and combine the best ideas from both sides.

The right is correct that we need to cut spending, and the left is right that we need to raise revenue - why not just do both instead of arguing about it indefinitely?

tbaker 3 years, 8 months ago

It is the scope and size of the cuts that need to happen Jafs. The two parties are just way too far apart right now. We need an election to get something going.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.