Letters to the Editor

Tired argument

November 22, 2011


To the editor:

In last Saturday’s column, the Journal-World editor went on the well-worn Republican rant against Obama, warning of the dire consequences and catastrophic failures of America should Obama be elected again. His argument contained the old, tired clichés and the right-wing’s standard, vague, obtuse and well-worn arguments blaming the president for all the nation’s economic problems, citing his “dismal record” and personal failure to live up to his “pledges” over the past three years. Granted, Obama hasn’t exactly lived up to his campaign promises as our country has tried to clean up after the eight years of the Bush debacle.

So, what have Republicans contributed to our nation’s welfare during this same period? All one hears is their main goal is to “defeat Obama,” and “just say no,” which has brought America to a standstill, a country divided with both parties acting like petulant, spoiled brats, which is disgusting and repugnant to voters. Republicans want to balance the budget but not raise taxes? How does one balance a checkbook without making deposits?

Apparently there are no longer any reasonable, mature adults left in Congress in either party who understand their job is to represent constituents, not become whores for big corporations and special interests who bribe them with campaign dollars in exchange for votes. Change will never happen unless all American voters make it happen at election time. However, if we don’t bother to vote or don’t care, then we deserve exactly what we get. Just look at Topeka!


Armstrong 6 years, 6 months ago

Curtis, in answer to your question how does one balance the budget without raising taxes ? Well if your household income does'nt meet expenses what do you do ? Cut spending. The goverment is far from destitute and does have money coming in but not enough to keep up with the rate of spending. $ 15 trillion in the hole shows a spending problem and I would bet that the more tax collected the faster our money is thrown away. You could compare tax money to the goverment like giving drugs to an addict, they always want more.

notaubermime 6 years, 6 months ago

Both Bush and Obama put in tax cuts. Under your analogy, that would be like going back to your boss and giving him back some of your paycheck while you are struggling to pay the bills at home.

You could compare a paycheck to employees like giving drugs to an addict, they always want more.

Armstrong 6 years, 6 months ago

My analogy suggests if you can't afford life as is stop spending what you don't have. Even if taxes stayed status quoe the cuts in spending would go much further to cutting debt because the government can't throw away a spending cut like they do our tax dollars

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

Well, the last time we had a balanced budget, revenues were higher and spending was lower.

That would seem to contradict your claim.

imastinker 6 years, 6 months ago

Correct. Spending was a lot lower. Medicare/medicaid by itself has unfunded liabilities of 10 trillion over the next decade. We can't tax our way out of this, it will cut consumer spending too much. All my customers are rich people (companies)!

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

And revenues were higher.

Why does everybody ignore that?

Last time the budget was balanced, both revenues and spending were at about 18% of GDP. Right now spending is higher, but revenue is also lower.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

But Republicans want to balance the budget by putting Grandpa out to the curb, while continuing to buy new guns for the new truck and its gun rack, along with plenty of ammo.

Armstrong 6 years, 6 months ago

Specifically who are those republicans are. Any names ?

Armstrong 6 years, 6 months ago

Big fan of entitlements are we ? So the choice is let Grandpa starve or be invaded by another country right ? How about the government must live within their means through spending cuts and take the tax burden off everyone. Sounds like a win win.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

I'd rather deal in realities.

Grandpa needs food, healthcare, shelter, but you think that the answer to the budget deficit lies in ending or reducing expenditures on those things.

But we are in very little danger of being invaded by anyone, so even if we cut military spending dramatically, we can still defend ourselves from that possibility.

Please, please, get in touch with reality.

Armstrong 6 years, 6 months ago

Right now Obama is talking about payroll tax cuts. Do you think Grandpa is still going to starve?

You're not close to reality yet. Every tax dollar going where it is suppoed to, not even close. You're living in a dream world. You don't get it, government can't spend a tax cut.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 6 months ago

And your Faux News sloganeering certainly doesn't provide any enlightenment.

Armstrong 6 years, 6 months ago

That was a quote from your post. Did'nt realize you were a fox fan

tomatogrower 6 years, 6 months ago

" Well if your household income does'nt meet expenses what do you do ? Cut spending."

I have also worked an extra job in rough times. So I increased my revenue, so I wouldn't lose my house and car. Sorry you aren't willing to do that.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 6 months ago

If your household income doesn't meet expenses what do you do? Cut spending is an option, but you could get another part-time job too. Ta-dow.

Keith 6 years, 6 months ago

I always hear this talk about how the government should have to balance its budget like we all do. The problem is, unless you are very wealthy, you are probably not running a balanced budget at home. Got a mortgage? You're running a deficit. Car loan? Running a deficit. Credit card balance? A deficit.

Brock Masters 6 years, 6 months ago

The USA is very wealthy so yes they can balance their budget. First step is to stop wasteful spending. We've all seen reports on stupid studies the government funds - stopping these won't solve the problem but it is a start.

Then we need to stop fighting wars without purpose like Iraq and Afghanistan. Billions saved there.

There are lots of programs that are discretionary and can be cut without hurting anyone.

Finally, in the end we'll need to cut essential programs some and possible raise taxes. But these cuts must be fair and not single out just one group rich or poor. People are upset that certain income like Buffett earns is not taxed as income. Well change the law but make it apply to everyone. if we need to raise taxes then do it for everyone albeit in a progressive way, but don't exempt one group.

The right solution is one that everyone dislikes because it affects them too.

jayhawklawrence 6 years, 6 months ago

Buffet says we should tax the people that have money.

Your logic is a flawed moral argument that gets very tiresome.

Brock Masters 6 years, 6 months ago

What part of my argument is based on morals?

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

There's a difference between debts and deficits.

The loans you mention are debts, and most people do have them. A deficit is the increase in your debt from year to year. So running deficits means that your debts are increasing every year.

A balanced budget at the federal level wouldn't eliminate our debt - it would stop it from increasing each year, which is a very good thing.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years, 6 months ago

Does that mean that if I always keep my revolving debt on my credit card under $1,000, everything is OK?

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago


But at least it would be a start, and significantly better than what we have now.

After we stop adding to our debt, I'd like to see us start to actually pay it off, personally.

David Reynolds 6 years, 6 months ago

Armstrong, well said. Keith one just needs to whatever it takes to get expenses in line. Spending versus income is an age old problem.

The only part of our budget we ever have control over is spending.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 6 months ago

More corruption and theft by an Obama insider:


Corzine has previously been reported to have been Obama's top adviser on financial matters, according to Obama himself. Given the results to date, that's not surprising.

Abdu Omar 6 years, 6 months ago

Good points made. But it is time to throw out the incumbent. If we do not re-elect an incumbent, we will have new blood, new ideas, and those who haven't been corrupted by the establishment in D.C. Who, there, is representing his constituents? Who is going the mile to find out what his people want? Who cares more about the American People and less about a foolish pledge to a lobbyist derailing all the progress? It is time for incumbents to go!

mloburgio 6 years, 6 months ago

rip-van-republicans were all asleep during the bush years.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 6 months ago

Fretster: Settle down. Nancy boy needs to go to work to pay his taxes. He's confused, not a hater. It will be ok.

tomatogrower 6 years, 6 months ago

Yes, and many of us gave credit for things that Bush had to deal with from Clinton, it's just that Bush did a lot of things to screw things up on his own, like start a war, then tell everyone they don't have to pay for it. Doesn't work.
If Obama came out in favor of tax cuts to the rich and cutting off disabled people, then the Republicans would suddenly shift their position. Look at the heath care bill. Most of that was based on Republican ideas, yet because Obama favored it, now it's bad.
I could find things I agreed with when Bush was president. In fact, he had some good ideas about dealing with immigration, until his party shut him down. But the Republicans will oppose anything that Obama says, even if they agree. Very petty.

somedude20 6 years, 6 months ago

Well back in 2000 we had extra money then old Bushy let them (the rich) pay less taxes while myself and many others paid their share (that was a tough sell as many in his own party did not want it) and then extended again. Obama wanted to get rid of it but now all the Rs' want to keep it. The way in which the republicans have been acting is nothing short of treasonous. They will not compromise and their sole goal is to do what it takes just to get rid of the president at any cost. Well, the cost is coming at the expense of our country. Obamas biggest fault is that he lacks a strong backbone to stand up to these hoods.

verity 6 years, 6 months ago

The ironic thing is that the Republican's goal of destroying Obama is likely what will get him re-elected. If they had actually tried to move the country forward and done what is right for the country---and had a viable candidate---they could probably win the 2012 election.

I wish they had someone I could in good conscience vote for, but all except Romney are bats#!+ crazy and Romney somehow doesn't really seem to be at home.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 6 months ago

Romney unveiled his first TV ad. Ironically it had a HUGE mistake in it. It attributed a statement to Obama made during the last presidential election campaign that was actually said by John McCain! http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/11/21/374147/breaking-first-romney-tv-ad-falsely-presents-mccain-campaign-quote-as-obamas/

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

Oh well.

I heard a clip of him on the radio and wasn't impressed.

But, I think he's the best chance that the Republicans have for a candidate.

verity 6 years, 6 months ago

But do you think he would be a good president? Better or worse than Obama?

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

That's an interesting question.

I disagree with the standard Republican ideas he seems to be espousing, like repealing the Dodd-Frank Act.

But, everybody's looking for something different in a president.

verity 6 years, 6 months ago

I asked what you thought. But if you don't want to say, that's fine.

Romney looks presidential and, as near as I can tell, was a good governor. Unfortunately he seems to have changed his views quite radically in order to please a certain segment of voters. It's impossible to know if he would move back towards the center/left in the general election. I don't trust him.

jafs 6 years, 6 months ago

I will not vote for him, because I disagree with his platform - I will vote for Obama, because he seems like the relatively better choice to me.

All politicians do what you comment, in my experience - they pander to voters to get elected, and lose their integrity.

I don't trust any of them.

My equivocation is just that what makes a "good" president is so hard to pin down, and many people have many differing agendas. For example, many people want us to have a "strong leader" who projects American influence forcefully around the world. I don't want that.

verity 6 years, 6 months ago

Generally I agree with what you said. However I do want someone who is a strong leader but is not a bully (which may be what you meant by "strong leader who projects . . ."). Unfortunately, many people don't seem to see the difference.

jayhawklawrence 6 years, 6 months ago

I agree with those who say we have to cut spending and increase revenue which means some corporations and wealthy people will be paying higher taxes.

Why hasn't this happened?

Newt Gingrich is the perfect example of what is wrong with America. His impressive poll numbers are a perfect example of what is wrong with the registered voters of the Republican Party.

When are you people going to open your eyes?

The reason we have Obama in the White House is not because he is the most qualified person in America, it is because the Republicans are a junk party and need to be replaced with something better.

The Democrats are next if they don't cut spending.

jaywalker 6 years, 6 months ago

The last paragraph of the LTE contains a salient point concerning the extreme disconnect between representatives and constituents. But it never ceases to amaze that people believe getting out to vote will put an end to the status quo. Why? Are there a slew of candidates waiting in the wings that won't fall to the seduction of power and greed in DC? Is there an army of righteous political wanna-be's poised to strike down special interests and campaign financing? Seems about as likely as the Chiefs' ability to score a touchdown.

The rest of the LTE is just the same ol' tired whine about the same ol' tired argument.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.