Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Had enough

July 25, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

In Mr. Simons’ Saturday Column on July 21 he wonders about our gullibility this election season.

When over half of the voters chose Sen. Obama to lead this country in 2008, it was because we saw in him a depth and vision that would be able to bring together the factions in Congress and in this country. Guess what? On the very eve of the inauguration in January 2009, GOP pollster Frank Luntz met with GOP congressional leaders and made a pact to block every single one of President Obama’s coming proposals, even those that the GOP had originally supported! President Obama is NOT a failure! He has accomplished much while facing almost insurmountable odds. People have better health care, veterans have more benefits, and the auto industry did not fail like Romney thought it should!

The GOP campaign touts Romney’s business experience, which is questionable at best in terms of tenure and accountability at Bain Capital, in addition to his off-shoring his profits in order to escape paying U.S. taxes. (Did Eisenhower run a business?) Contrary to Saturday’s column, it is the Romney campaign which uses falsehoods in ads, dragging in Hillary Clinton and Bob Schieffer without asking, and leaving out a whole sentence in the president’s speech about the importance of building a business with one’s own effort plus the help of others.

Will Kansans vote to increase the wealth of the already super-wealthy and jeopardize adequate funding for education and health care in Kansas? Not me. Enough is enough!

Comments

Richard Heckler 2 years, 5 months ago

Why would anyone vote republican again after this long documented history"

Republicans cost the Nation too much money!

  1. ENTITLEMENT - TABOR is Coming by Grover Norquist and Koch Bros sells out state governments, public schools,SRS services etc etc to private industry = Grab Your Wallets! http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0705rebne.html /

  2. ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm /

  3. ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html /

4.ENTITLEMENT - Bush/Cheney implied many financial institutions were at risk instead of only 3? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year /

  1. Still A Bad ENTITLEMENT Idea – Bush Tax Cuts aka The ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class = duped one more time. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html /

  2. In the end big debt and super duper bailouts were the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. /

  3. In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:

7a.* ENTITLEMENT - Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy. /

7b. * ENTITLEMENT - Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. /

7c. ENTITLEMENT - Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html /

  1. ENTITLEMENT - Starting in 2003, George W. Bush destroyed the world economy by encouraging U.S. banks to make loans to those who could not afford them, through schemes such as the "American Dream Downpayment Initiative". /

8a. Also through the destruction of oversight, such as lawsuits to prevent state securities laws from being enforced on Bush's watch. /

  1. Once Bush's policies led to their inevitable result of economic collapse, the United States found itself in a situation where it had to take on debt in order to restore the economy. / http://www.reaganbushdebt.org/CalculationDetails.aspx /

  2. Nixon’s Watergate /

  3. Reagan/Bush Iran Contra /

Richard Heckler 2 years, 5 months ago

Have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security?

Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system. But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative. After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953. In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

Former President Bush also misrepresented the truth when he claimed that Social Security trustees say the system will be “bankrupt” in 2042. Bankruptcy is defined as “the inability to pay ones debts” or, when applied to a business, “shutting down as a result of insolvency.” Nothing the trustees have said or published indicates that Social Security will fold as a result of insolvency.

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation. As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.

According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments). In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today’s retirees do. The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Dollars and Sense

Fred Mertz 2 years, 5 months ago

Kansas will vote for Romney.

I do have to ask - the GOP votes against Obama and that is bad but when the Lawrence Dems vote against Brownback that is good?

CLARKKENT 2 years, 5 months ago

NOW YOU UNDERSTAND FRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

Ideally, we'd co-operate, by means of substantive discussion and debate, taking good ideas from all sides and combining them.

That's only possible if both "sides" are willing to do that - if one side essentially rides over everybody else (Brownback), or simply opposes (Congressional R), it's not possible.

chootspa 2 years, 4 months ago

Please cite an example of when Brownback has proposed the exact same legislation democrats proposed a few years earlier. You could also just go with an example of Brownback offering back a reasonable compromise that would be seen as moderate to liberal leaning legislation a few years ago. It will help me clarify the difference for you.

Fred Mertz 2 years, 4 months ago

Thanks. You made my point. The KS dems see nothing good in what Brownback is doing so to represent their constituents they vote against him. Just like they should.

The KS Comgressional delegation and others see nothing good in what Obama is doing and neither do their constituents, at least the ones that votes for them so they vote against his policies. I agree withem just as you agree with the KS dems.

I don't blame the dems for Brownback not doing all he wanted and you shouldn't blame the GOP in Washington. Blame Obama for not being able to bring a divided nation together

Abdu Omar 2 years, 4 months ago

Fred, when the Congressional Republicans said that they would oppose everything Obama brought to the table, they made the intentional statement that they would do everything to deny Obama a second term regardless of the bills proposed. Does this mean that good bills were denied because of this statement? Of Course! So now Romney is running against a law he proposed and the first thing he wants to do is repeal the Affordable Care Law. Its just like his law in the first place, so don't you see the hypocracy? One day he wants to push this through and the next he is against it. Crazy guy, this Romney!

Flap Doodle 2 years, 5 months ago

More than half the voters in 2008 bought a pig in a poke.

Kate Rogge 2 years, 4 months ago

And he's still way better than Romney. Go figure, huh?

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 5 months ago

How much do you get paid to troll for the Republicrats? If the money is good, I might consider joining you. Side note, you might consider changing up the routine as the same-old-same-old schtick is getting tiresome.

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 4 months ago

Together in madness we’ll proclaim our intent. To raze this world in resounding deceit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d-Dbx_5vrE

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 4 months ago

Let's have a revolution and vote outside the norms. Vote for freedom. Please consider this candidate: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdpcggfIt0U

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 4 months ago

The talking heads of mass media, and people's bigotry and prejudices, are what's divided this country. That coupled with a great big dose of stupidity...

woodscolt 2 years, 5 months ago

"Yep...he has succeeded in dividing this nation like no other President before him , of course, speaking of the Bush, Cheney, Rove, machine" and all baa has to do is substitute Obama for Bush and thats all it takes.

Heres another fact for you baa, can you change some words around or take a few out and make this what Obama did?

"On the very eve of the inauguration in January 2009, GOP pollster Frank Luntz met with GOP congressional leaders and made a pact to block every single one of President Obama’s coming proposals, even those that the GOP had originally supported! " What a great way to bring the country together.

What a great way to bring the country together.

George Lippencott 2 years, 4 months ago

I ASSUME THIS TOOK PLACE IN A SECRET LOCATION AND THERE IS NO WRITTEN RECORD GENERATED BY REPUBLICANS.

NO WONDER WE ARE AT EACH OTHER''S THROATS WITH THIS KIND OF FOOLISHNESS

Abdu Omar 2 years, 4 months ago

No, I remember seeing a clip of Mitch McConnell saying that they would do everything to make Obama a one term president.

George Lippencott 2 years, 4 months ago

And you see no difference between what woodscolt wrote above and what you just wrote?

Stating that you will work to unseat the opponent is not the same as saying you will oppose everything he does. In fact there have been many compromises.

Do you now demand that Republicans vote for Mr. Obama so as not to be accused of being opposed to him - as they are supposed to be.

grammaddy 2 years, 5 months ago

News Flash: Obama will remain Black his entire second term.Get over it.

Gotalife 2 years, 4 months ago

Born, glad you are such an expert! LOL

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 4 months ago

Someone once said, "it takes one to know one".

jaywalker 2 years, 4 months ago

Way to denigrate the string, gramm. Again. Nobody mentioned how he took his coffee 'til you had to bring it up. Look in the mirror, could be you're the problem.

Kookamooka 2 years, 4 months ago

P.S. God doesn't want you to vote for Romney either. He's a quasi-christian who will say whatever you want to hear to get elected. The Christian conservatives need to start their own party and put up their own candidates from now on. Look at this mess?

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 4 months ago

Dump the repubs and demos. Send them both a message that we're taking this country back. Vote for freedom. Vote for the Libertarian. I'm voting for the former governor of New Mexico, and businessman, Gary Johnson.

tbaker 2 years, 4 months ago

"Presidnet Obama is not a failure."

Really?

In my lifetime, the number of Americans on welfare / public assistance (does not include Social Security / MEDICARE) has gone from around 6% to 35%. Nearly half the country doesn't pay income taxes anymore. 1 in 7 people are on FoodStamps. For crying out loud we even have USDA partnering with the Mexican government to increase participation in our food stamp program here in the US. In June, more people signed up for Social Security Disability than the number who actually found a job. Safety nets for the poor and vulnerable have turned into career choices. R2 unemployment has been over 15% for 3+ years. This fall will mark the 5th straight year in a row we have increased our national debt by 1 trillion dollars. We are about to see the largest tax increase in the history of the world (ObamaCare). The President calls the private sector "the enemy" and claims business owners really didn't create their business depicting them as somehow being subsidized by "the rest of us." On and on it goes....but of course I suppose it is all Bush's fault. Yeah right.

How can anyone, most especially Mr. Obama, look at this and call it success - unless he wants the majority of the country dependant on the government.

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

Well, your lifetime, unless you're 3 years old, includes many more presidents and administrations than Obama's, right?

That's "federal" income taxes, and a large majority of those folks are seniors living on rather meager SS benefits - should we tax them on those?

I don't know about some of your other stats, but I agree that our increase in the national debt is a problem, and I'd like to see somebody in Washington take it seriously.

I believe the statement about the "largest tax increase" has been debunked numerous times.

And, of course, we've had serious opposition from the R in Congress, which easily blocks much of what Obama and the D want to do.

So, the idea that all of these things are somehow signs of "Obama's failure" is just too simplistic for me.

tbaker 2 years, 4 months ago

No Jafs, it has not been debunked. It is totally BUNK (Seinfeld)

Not only is it the largest tax increase in history, it will (already is) result in people losing their health insurance as employer opt to drop coverage and pay the "tax" and seniors losing MEDICARE (they paid into) becuase of all the cuts there.

You have to pass the bill to know whats in it. Read this list of new taxes. http://atr.org/full-list-ACA-tax-hikes-a6996

arizonajh 2 years, 4 months ago

Adjusting for inflation, a 1982 tax hike under GOP President Ronald Reagan is the largest tax increase ($85.3 billion), and Obama’s health reform law drops to fourth ($71.7 billion), FactCheck.org found.

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

See posts below.

Also, you can google the question and find information which debunks the claim.

The cuts to Medicare have to do with over-payments to private insurance companies to administer the programs (which I think shouldn't be happening at all, if it's a government program). Whether or not this results in lesser quality care remains to be seen, but I doubt that it will.

I've said that many people will lose employer based coverage - that's my point. But, the exchanges and subsidies are supposed to be means by which individuals can get better and cheaper insurance without being tied to an employer.

woodscolt 2 years, 4 months ago

Thats all well an fine baker but not one thing you cited is valid. You form your opinions (which you think are facts) from twisted out of context misinformation. You don't have a clue.

woodscolt 2 years, 4 months ago

There is no point in refuting fantasy. You wacky right wingers manufacture complete Bs and hold hands and keep telling each other its true but you don't get that not everyone is playing along in your little fantasy world. Baker laid out complete BS and I called him on it enough said.

woodscolt 2 years, 4 months ago

holding hands again making up idiotic crap .

jaywalker 2 years, 4 months ago

Well done, woodscolt. Disagree, accuse, insult, then run away without ever engaging in a real discussion.

What a great addition to the board.

jaywalker 2 years, 4 months ago

What? Is it my job to point out all who post like this? I'm not allowed to mention such unless I go across the board?? Besides, seems like there are plenty that are on top of your bogeyman every day, what's one more?

tbaker 2 years, 4 months ago

Weak minded people who lack the capacity to critically think and reason so they can understand the truth often resort to fitful tantrums of clumsily delivered demagoguery. They think it’s a viable substitute for the rational examination of facts that don’t fit their world view. I used to try and help them. They just bore me now.

arizonajh 2 years, 4 months ago

Don't be so hard on yourself. Self-help may work yet.

Kathy Getto 2 years, 4 months ago

I know just what you are saying, tbaker!! Facts such as: Obama is a vampire Obama is a Muslim Obama's SSN is a fake Obama is trying to take our guns away!!!!! I used to try to help them, too, but they just bore me now.

arizonajh 2 years, 4 months ago

Do you then think it would have been better under McCain/Palin?You can't prove that anymore than the left can prove their view so what's your point?

arizonajh 2 years, 4 months ago

That was one big lie. So you are 3 and a half years old? Because you just blamed the current president for something that happened "over your lifetime". Did Obama write the tax code so that those people don't pay taxes or is it the same as it was before he was president? Did Obama start the recession that put those people on food stamps? The right always says that Government doesn't create jobs but he is at fault if there are not enough? This is the fifth year that we have increased our debt by 1 trillion dollars but he is only 3+ years into his term and the first years budget was written before he took office but he is responsible for 5 years? I would also suggest you check Politifact.com on your claim of "largest tax increase in history" they say that the statement is false! How can anyone including you you look at this and say the things you list are Obama's fault? Should we blame the housing crash and Iraq on him too?

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

It's interesting that Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren voluntarily agreed to not allow outside funding in their contest.

As a result, their debates will be much more important to voters, which to my mind is as it should be.

Fred Mertz 2 years, 4 months ago

That reminds me that Obama agreed only to public funding in 2008 but then changed leaving only dumbass McCain using public funding.

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

How long did they have a "filibuster proof" majority?

progressive_thinker 2 years, 4 months ago

They really did not ever have a full filibuster proof majority. For two brief periods, the democrats could barely get to 60 votes by counting the two independents. But these were brief periods only. I think that it was about 14 weeks total. [Al Franken was sworn in during July 09 to make 58 democrats. At that time, Ted Kennedy was still a senator, but had not voted in months due to his illness.]

The notion that the democrats had true control of the senate for two years is a myth.

George Lippencott 2 years, 4 months ago

They did have operational control for periods longer than two weeks. The two independents caucus with the democrats and generally vote with them. Two of the Republicans on social issues generally voted with the Democrats.

The point really is that we will never know because no vote was attempted during those periods (Harry could have called one). We did Obama care instead.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 4 months ago

Kennedy died 8-25-09. Kirk was appointed as his successor 9 25, 2009. The senate voted to end debate on the ACA was December 23, 2009. There was a very narrow window that the ACA could have passed.

The point is, and remains, that the notion that the democrats had control of the senate for the first two years of the Obama administration is not true.

George Lippencott 2 years, 4 months ago

You only count Democratic control when there were 60 Democrats. That is very misleading. There were two republican votes and two Independent votes that generally supported the Democrats. Kennedy could and did come back for critical votes until he died. You are accurate that the control did not extend for the full term it did extend for much more than two weeks. As I said the only way to test it would have been to call a vote and see. No vote on tax cuts were ever called because the Democrats did not have full support of their own caucus and knew it..

progressive_thinker 2 years, 4 months ago

I thought that I had adequately conceded the two independent senators votes to the democratic total. If not, I concede that fact now.

Still, with Franken not being seated until July due to the dispute over his seat, and in my recollection, Kennedy not casting any votes after February 2009, it left the Democrats in a position where they were unable to get a cloture motion passed, even if there was perfect party unity, which is highly unlikely. It was only after Kennedy's successor was seated that the Democrats really had the 60 votes. Of course, after the election, the Republicans had 41 seats.

The problem with the argument about "just calling a vote and see" is that the senate has been clogged with record numbers of filibusters, even for routine matters, since the beginning of the 110th congress. The Senate ends up going through this for even routine business, not really leaving time for the really big stuff.

Finally, and in advance, I will also concede that the Democrats really have no room to complain, as they gave up the opportunity for filibuster reform when they were previously in the minority.

George Lippencott 2 years, 4 months ago

To answer the question – Kansans will vote to protect their hard earned incomes. Mr. Obama will have no choice but to raise taxes on the middle class by somewhere between 25 and 50% to cover the additional revenue needs he has built into the budget and to cover Obama care and other new programs.

The myth that Obama care is without costs borders on the criminal. To get the CBO to make that determination required a onetime $500B unspecified cut in Medicare. It also required delaying the entitlement portion until half way through the ten year cost period (cuts costs in half one time). The most recent missive from the CBO was to recognize that the Medicaid portion of Obama Care is no longer mandated. However the provision that the feds will pay 90 % is still in place so if any state signs on to the enhanced Medicaid program the most recent estimate is wrong.

Lastly the original intention of Obama Care was to see that all Americans have coverage. Now that the Medicaid portion is neither required nor funded about 3 Million of the alleged uninsured are still uninsured. Of course they can be picked up under the entitlement but then that cost goes up – perhaps faster than it would have under Medicaid.

It would be really “transparent” if Mr. Obama would come clean on the long term funding sources for Obama Care, the details of the $500B cut in Medicare and the sources for the annual trillion dollar revenue shortfall. The $85B revenue increase form taxing the rich as he has proposed hardly makes a dent in that projected annual shortfall.

If your family makes or anticipated making more than $50K a year one has to assume you will be the source of all that money. Perhaps that is why a lot of people are not volunteering to carry the water for Mr. Obama in this election cycle. Where is the transparency promised last cycle?

George Lippencott 2 years, 4 months ago

Did you read my post - no because you ignored the comment on the CBO. I explained how the "savings" were geberated. The point remains that he now has to find $500B in Medicare cuts (care for illegals at the expense of seniors), and another sevreal hundred billion for the five years he did not fund.

It is no more free than "free reproduction services. In fact the very minipulative proccess used by the Democrats to get the CBO to make it seem free should scare responsible Americans out of a years growth. The game played is nothing short of a bald face lie that you are perpetuating out of eithere ignorance as to what was done or malliciously to conceal the train heading straight at the middle class.

How about the rtillion dollars unfunded budget you ignor regularly.

tbaker 2 years, 4 months ago

From a blog (not a Czech Newspaper):

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their President.”

msezdsit 2 years, 4 months ago

I noticed someone commented earlier that your post described Bush and you simply substituted Obama and it appears you have done it again. I think your analogy(or whomever you got it from) really applies to the people who jump on the the radical right wing agendas such as Kobach and the Jim Crow immigration laws, ie arizona and Alabama. The people who vote for this stuff have a "throw out the baby with the bathwater" mentality. For example, the police in Alabama can be fired for not stopping someone who might be an illegal immigrant so to save their job they spend all their time stopping anyone who might possibly be an illegal in their view instead of paying attention to crime. Therefore crime rate goes up. Migrant farm workers who may be here legally are necessary to harvest crops but they are so afraid that they will be persecuted by this law that they stay away and the farmer crops rot in the fields. The farmers then are the ones victimized by the immigration law. Legal immigrants are so terrified that they flee and hide because they don't want to be incarcerated for however long it takes for them to be exonerated. I could cite many more unintended consequences of these over the top laws but I will stop at that. Point being the electorate that is responsible for electing these officials are really the problem.

msezdsit 2 years, 4 months ago

While your comment holds little validity unless you are referring to the democrats who are upset with Obama for all his failed attempts to reach across the isle and work with the republicans and the fact that they continually burn him for it.What is interesting is that George Bush will not attend the pubs convention and it also seems that Romney has all but forgotten about Bush. You would think he would want Bush to campaign for him after all they are, politically speaking , virtually twins. Given all of the stories and I mean stories that have been produced by Newmax that, while they got their shock value, have been debunked and proven false, they have no creditability.

Mike Ford 2 years, 4 months ago

troll party of four....your crow is ready to eat.....

George Lippencott 2 years, 4 months ago

vertigo

Sorry I missed your response.

We are spending 1 trillion more than we are taking in. Call it what you will. Either we cut programs or raise taxes.. Of course we can increase the deficit by a trillion a year if we don't pay our annual bills.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.