Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, October 27, 2012

Simons’ Saturday Column: Growing deficit is critical issue in presidential race

October 27, 2012

Advertisement

How many voters in the upcoming presidential election will have given serious attention to the major issues facing this country and how will this affect for whom they vote? Will the majority of voters merely vote the party line whether this favors every Democratic candidate or every Republican candidate?

There are very serious issues at stake, issues that could and probably will affect every citizen in the country in one way or another.

The national debt and how Washington officials may decide to tackle this monster are likely to affect Lawrence. For example, federal funds may be cut that have been directed toward student aid at Kansas University, and the city may lose funding from the state because of cutbacks in money the state has been receiving from Washington. The city has many costly road projects in the planning stage and these could be reduced, delayed or possibly eliminated. Federal grants or research grants to KU could be trimmed or eliminated. Any program or activity in Lawrence that receives federal fiscal assistance, and many state programs, all could be reduced substantially because of major reductions in federal spending. New tax policies also could color private giving to KU, which has played such an important role in the university’s success.

It’s likely a high percentage of voters are numb about the election because campaigning to win the 2012 presidential election has been going on, in one way or another, since the day after Barack Obama won the election in November 2008. His aides and political strategists have been working since that time on his re-election, and most every action and policy he has endorsed probably has been reviewed and tested to see how it will play with voters and affect his political popularity.

Following Sen. John McCain’s defeat, Republican hopefuls began jockeying for position and prominence in their races for the GOP presidential nomination. The public has been saturated with campaign messages and partisan ads making the 2012 election the most costly in this country’s history. It’s almost obscene how much money — approaching $2 billion — has been spent by both parties.

The saying “to the victor belong the spoils” certainly applies to political elections with winners able to staff thousands of well-paying jobs, muscle through legislation that may be more favorable to those who supported their candidacy and many others ways of rewarding party faithful.

But the saying “to the victor belong the spoils” should be modified or expanded to say “to the victor belong the spoils AND the responsibility and obligation to do what is in the best interests of the country.”

This nation has become so deeply divided that Congress is deadlocked, and, consequently, the country is stalemated, standing still rather than getting stronger.

There are terribly important issues before the voters. The dangers and consequences of the ever-growing national debt cannot be overstated. This situation, no matter how it is addressed, will affect every American in one way or another.

There is no more important issue. President Obama promised to cut the debt in half during his first term in office. Sadly, it has increased by $6 trillion to the present $16 trillion-plus figure. If there is any chance to control and reduce this dangerous debt, challenger Romney or President Obama will have to initiate new and effective programs that are sure to be tough and painful and will affect every citizen.

Do voters consider this when entering the voting both? If so, which candidate do they believe can get the job done? Obama’s record over the past three years is bad, very bad. Romney’s is untested at the national level.

Millions of Americans rely on federal aid in one form or another. Millions don’t pay any income taxes. Have they become so dependent on this aid and so fearful of losing it through cutbacks or new legislation that might be necessary to rein in the national debt that they will decide to vote for Obama and four more years of his failed policies?

Do voters believe Romney’s policies can create 12 million new jobs in four years, initiate the necessary cuts in federal government spending and get Americans to be energy independent — all combining to help reduce the national debt?

The debt matter touches all other issues facing this country and, at some time, it has to be addressed through serious actions by the White House and Congress with the support of the majority of Americans.

Which candidate, Obama or Romney, has the record and first-hand experience in business that is so critical for our country? And which candidate has the record and experience of working with differing legislative interests to win bipartisan support for badly needed legislation?

Obama and his strategists have been unable to negotiate, and, as a result, there is a crippling standoff in Congress. He has been unable to work or forge a working relationship with the Republican majority in the House. There has been little reaching across the aisle by Sen. President Harry Reid or Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney was able to pass legislation he favored even with Democrats enjoying more than an 80 percent majority in the state legislature. Would he be able to develop a similar relationship with Congress if he were elected? No one knows for sure, but he did it in Massachusetts, and he certainly has the business background and experience Obama lacks.

Again, will voters vote a straight party line or will they vote for what they think is in the best interests of their country?

Comments

Larry Sturm 1 year, 9 months ago

VOTE but remember that the last several presidents that we had that were business people we had to bail out the financial institutions..

3

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

This is a funny column.

On one hand, he seems to be saying we should be afraid of cuts in federal spending, and the effects they'll have, while at the same time we need to be very afraid of our national debt.

Also, did Obama really say he would cut the national debt in half? Or did he say he would cut our annual deficits in half? There's a rather large difference between those two statements.

And, if D in Mass were open to working with Romney, and R in Congress aren't open to that with Obama, I'd hardly give Romney credit and Obama blame for that. And, I'd be careful, not wanting to reward that sort of behavior by electing a R president.

4

Kendall Simmons 1 year, 9 months ago

I wish Dolph would realize that the debt is not the biggest issue...and, yes, it can be overstated. The biggest issue is unemployment.

Speaking of which, I also wish he'd realize that Moody's has said that 12 million jobs will be created regardless of who wins the election, so that's no more a reason to vote for Romney than for Obama.

Dolph also continues to screw up the 47% thing. "Have they become so dependent of this aid" indeed. It's weird. Republicans constantly push for cutting taxes. But, when it happens and someone else benefits more than they do, they get all annoyed and whiny about "those people".

And as far as Massachusetts goes? Republican legislators still coomplain about Romney. He didn't bother learning their names. He came in with a "I'm the CEO. We'll do everything my way" approach. They were not pleased with him. I'd also point out to Dolph that he issued over 800 vetoes...and that most over them were overridden. Indeed, a number of overrides were unanimous! So much for 'working together".

And, you're right. Obama said he'd cut the deficit in half, not the debt. Dolph has done worse than usual in this column.

4

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

A very quick google search shows that he pledged to cut the deficit, not the debt, in half.

That's quite different, of course.

It does look as if he probably won't get there, as that would mean a deficit of about $500 billion by 2013. But, before blaming him for that, I'd look at Congress, since they're the ones who set spending levels.

In fact, it was an overly optimistic and unrealistic thing for him to pledge in the first place, and almost certainly made before he understood how obstructionist Congress would be during his first term.

4

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 9 months ago

Thank you for clarifying this and many other points.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Those are indeed "other words", and not mine.

If R in Congress are able to obstruct during a second term, then Obama and the D won't be able to accomplish much.

Most people who understand how our system works understand that.

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 9 months ago

Listening to NPR just yesterday, they mentioned that the latest report of a 2% growth in GDP was the result of government spending on the military, as they prepare for the doomsday scenario of automatic cuts that have to go into effect after the election should no agreements be made by the President and Congress. Anyone hopeful that sweeping agreements after the election is a probability?

That means the 2% grown rate is largely an illusion. The economy is "really" growing at a much slower rate, if growing at all. I see a double dip recession over the horizon, that is, if we ever really emerged from the first.

But that deficit thing, it's really growing. Someone's going to have to pay that back. If that's the legacy we're all leaving to future generations, shame on us.

3

jhawkinsf 1 year, 9 months ago

I may get it, but it's too bad your avatar doesn't.

I don't want to be too critical of Romney, but the sad truth is that generally speaking, neither Romney nor Obama get it. Generally speaking, neither Democrats nor Republicans get it. They are tied up with too many special interests to get it. They're in so many beds with so many interests that they can't even remember who they slept with last night. Whores may be too strong a word, but I'm hard pressed to find another that better describes their behavior.

1

Armstrong 1 year, 9 months ago

My avatar doesn't have the country on the same path as Greece. How is it Libs / takers can't figure that out about Barry

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 9 months ago

The policies of one party is to tax and spend until we reach financial ruin. The policies of the other party is to borrow and spend until we reach financial ruin. How can one path be better or worse than the other path when the destination is the same!

2

jhawkinsf 1 year, 9 months ago

Your analysis may be exactly correct. Let's give it a try and find out.

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 9 months ago

I've never said you should vote for anyone in particular. I would encourage you to learn as much as you can about a whole host of candidates representing many parties and choose the one that most closely reflects your values. That might be a Libertarian, a Green, whatever. Vote your conscience. Not my conscience and not just vote for the lesser of two evils, unless that's what your conscience dictates.

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 9 months ago

Fair enough. And yes, my vote is a protest vote against the two major political parties. That said, I feel that here in Kansas, we've taken a far too radical turn to the right and will be voting for Democrats to counter that trend, not necessarily because I believe in these particular Democrats.

0

Kendall Simmons 1 year, 9 months ago

No! Not the deficit...the DEBT!!!

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Conservatives seem only to be concerned about the deficits and debt when there's a D president. Otherwise, "deficits don't matter".

R have pledged not to raise taxes at all, even if there were a 10/1 ratio of cuts/increases.

This is just not workable - all nonpartisan economists agree that a combination of spending cuts and increased tax revenue are necessary to balance the budget, and the last time we had that, revenue was higher and spending was lower, by about the same percentage - 4 to 6% of GDP.

Simpson-Bowles produced a version of this, and both D and R voted for and against it.

The problem is real, but that doesn't mean Romney/Ryan is the way to go.

8

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

I don't think the "status quo" is better.

I think that only D are open to the only possible solution, raising revenue and decreasing spending.

As long as the Norquist pledge has so much power over R, they won't do what's necessary to fix things.

1

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Norquist and his pledge hold a lot of power over R.

I'd need to look into that in more detail to understand it, and what it means. It's counter-intuitive that tax cuts would produce more revenue.

Did you notice the huge drop before the upswing?

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Strange view there.

Clinton left Bush with budget surpluses and a healthy economy.

I looked it up - virtually all economists agree that tax cuts don't produce more revenue.

1

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

I read that link, and found no mention of a recession.

Source for that claim?

What dip prior to the Bush tax cuts? From a previous chart you posted, revenue was going up until then, and then down by a large amount after the first one. I looked at some analysis of the effect of the Bush tax cuts, and economists generally agree they cost the government somewhere around $1.5 trillion in revenue.

One of the reasons that revenue increased at the end of Bush's terms is that certain provisions in the cuts actually expired.

Even tax cut proponents don't claim they'll increase revenue, for the most part, but rather that they'll stimulate growth.

During Clinton's 2 terms, we saw steadily decreasing deficits followed by steadily increasing surpluses, and the only time in the last 40 years or so that we had balanced budgets at all.

1

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Whether or not there was a recession or not is open to debate - we didn't in fact have the technical definition of one. We did have a downturn in the economy, one which was partly caused by the dot.com issue, partly by Bush's policies, and partly by the 9/11 attacks in 2001, as far as I can tell from my research.

And, the downturn in the economy began in March 2001, several months after Bush became president.

If you google clinton's presidency, you'll find a nice Wikipedia article with many facts about how great the economy was doing during his terms in office.

Growth does not equal tax revenue, tax revenue is a percentage of growth, and what percentage it is depends on tax policies.

Google Bush tax cuts and you'll find a number of references - it's generally agreed that's what the tax cuts cost the government.

It seems you follow the partisan playbook - if you like the president, give him the credit for good things, but if you like the congress, give them the credit. Following the idea that congress is more responsible, you'd have to conclude that R obstructionism during Obama's first term is responsible for not fixing our problems.

But, I'm sure that you don't do that.

So, your argument isn't consistent, and you're just picking and choosing based on who you like better, D or R.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

No it won't.

Growth would have to produce large multipliers of the tax cuts in order to simply break even.

It's possible in theory, but in practice it doesn't seem to work.

Think about it. Let's say that you get a tax cut of $10. That means the government has just lost $10 of revenue. If tax rates are 20%, then that $10 tax cut has to generate enough growth and taxable income of 5x $10=$50 in order to generate that $10 back in revenue.

That's probably why it doesn't work in reality, especially since there's no guarantee that the growth will be taxed at the same rate - for example, capital gains taxes are lower than other taxes. In that case the growth has to be even greater just to break even.

And, of course, if the growth and income generated isn't taxable at all, it won't generate any tax revenue.

Even the Laffer curve theory predicts that increasing taxes up to a certain point will increase revenue - if that weren't the case, then a 0% tax rate would generate the most revenue for the government.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

You're simply wrong.

Look it up.

If Clinton's policies had been bad from the start, then the first two years of his administration wouldn't have showed decreasing deficits.

I'm not going to do your research for you, especially when it's so easy to do.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Source please?

And, did that budget include the costs of the wars, or were they "off budget"?

Also, you can't forget the massive mess that Bush created - oh wait, my bad, of course you can.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

I'm waiting for one ~ just one ~ of the Romney/Ryan apologists to explain how on earth their concept of "Personhood" and anti-choice agenda logically means hormonal contraception should be banned, like Ryan supports. As millions and millions of women and their families would be affected by such a ban ~ many who use such medication for non-contraceptive reasons ~ you best get your stories straight on this issue, because you will be held accountable for your efforts to impose your will on the nation.

Other than another way to assert sovereignity and control over the little women in their lives, I fail to see any correlation between this goal and the protection of any lives, born or unborn. Big government nanny-staters like Ryan and many other Republicans truly feel they're on a mission from God here with their forced-birth agenda... and that's why they'll pursue any strategy possible to achieve their desired outcome.

7

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 9 months ago

Any person who actually believes that a rape conception is a "gift from God" or is "what God intended" follows one seriously sick deity (and is, consequently, a pretty sick person themselves).

5

jhawkinsf 1 year, 9 months ago

They can pursue any agenda they want, but Roe isn't going anywhere. It's been too long, too well established in law for it to go away. Ryan may want the moon to be made out of blue cheese, but it ain't gonna happen. Separate but equal isn't coming back either. Women aren't going to lose the right to vote. Slavery is in our rear view mirror, not in front of us. The Rehnquist court, the Roberts court, some of our most conservative courts in history haven't made Roe go away.

Shame on Ryan for telling such tall tales that anyone might believe Roe will go away. Shame on those who believe such tall tales, as you're being played.

1

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 9 months ago

Conservatives are also forgetting that taxes against the top 10% in the country are the lowest they have been in the history of the nation.
It's ironic to think that, if we went to a flat tax structure with NO exemptions, credits, deductions or loopholes (and that includes off shore accounts with penalties for keeping hidden accounts), taxes would actually go UP against that segment of wealth holders.

4

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

Um... it's a "critical issue" in the upcoming election, so it's entirely germaine. Expectedly, it appears you haven't an explanation justifying why hormonal birth control should be banned, like Ryan supports. And it's not "my" war on women ~ talk to a few outside your compound and you might learn something.

1

Armstrong 1 year, 9 months ago

No this is actually a critical issue to liberals who want abortion on demand. That whole personal responsibility thing get you in trouble every time.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

So hormonal birth control is the same as "abortion on demand", and those who use it are lacking in personal responsibility? Explain. (And you should note that any derision you express toward women here will include many, many Republican women who use hormonal contraception as well.)

2

Armstrong 1 year, 9 months ago

No thanks, beaten that horse to death too many times

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

You got nuttin' ~ no surprise. You owe an apology to the women you just smeared with your accusation of lack of responsibility (unless you mean they're irresponsible for not cowtowing to your party's forced-birth agenda).

1

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

It seems this is all a joke to you. Denying medical services to women ~ what a riot. Would you go up to a Republican woman and explain to her that her use of hormonal contraception ~ for reasons of birth control or medical ~ that she is irresponsible? And in the same breath demand her vote? No wonder y'all are gonna lose.

4

deec 1 year, 9 months ago

I have a very close relative who is a virgin. She takes the pill so she doesn't have severe PMS and two menstrual cycles every month. Is she irresponsible for treating her anemia which is caused by a rotten menstrual cycle?

0

tomatogrower 1 year, 9 months ago

Personal responsibility just doesn't happen for the Republicans. Women have to be told what to do, because Eve was so evil. The soon to be bankrupt state of Kansas won't be the guvs fault, because he just signed the bill that the legislature sent him. It was the only one sent to him. He just didn't have a choice. Buy health insurance. Why should I do that when I can go to the emergency room and get free care? I just throw those bills they keep sending me in the trash, because I know they will eventually write them off. I don't need no stinkin' insurance. Bush invaded Iraq, because he just didn't have time to read the intelligence report about the lack of weapons and lack of evidence that Al Queda was hiding there, and that they were hiding in plain sight in Afghanistan. It wasn't his responsibility to read those reports. it wasn't Republican lawmakers responsibility to fund the protection of diplomats in other countries. Obama should have held a bake sale, so he could have hired extra guards.

Let women make their own decisions. If your god is real, and sends this woman to hell, then it's her decision. Not yours.

1

Kendall Simmons 1 year, 9 months ago

"Personal responsibility" also means women get to make decisions about their own bodies, not some politician.

2

Flap Doodle 1 year, 9 months ago

You mean the current regime's policy of directing hundreds of millions of federal tax dollars to political cronies in the past 3 years was a bad move for America? Inconceivable!

2

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 9 months ago

Just as inconceivable as the billions that were shoveled at Halliburton. Iraq wasn't an ideological war. It was an excuse for Bush's pals to financially rape the country and send us into the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

2

Armstrong 1 year, 9 months ago

Barry fully owns this recession. Unkept promises, legislation we clearly do not want, record debt, unemployment, stagnat economy..... has given us four years of assult on America - soon to be Greece if ( God forbid ) that clown is given another 4. End the error Nov 7

3

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 9 months ago

Is that a threat of revolt? Good luck with that.

4

Kendall Simmons 1 year, 9 months ago

Yeah, right. Sure. How many times have people like you "warned" us of things like this happening? The world is going to end on December 21st, too :-)

2

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

I'll bet it takes longer to turn around the Penn State football program.

Obama kept us from falling into a Depression. Since Reagan tripled the national debt and put in place the supply-side economics of lower taxes for the wealthy that we still have today, our debt has continued to rise. More of the same will not help.

Yes, we need to cut spending, but we also need to raise taxes. Piles of money kept in an offshore account in the Cayman Islands isn't hiring anyone and doesn't a "job creator" make.

The only reasonable approach is to do everything possible to have a strong middle class. Romney does not get that, and he would not govern for the entire nation, but for the wealthy only.

Obama deserves to be re-elected.

4

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

So who won the SaegonPage pool?

3

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 9 months ago

Meh. Give it time. He'll be back.

3

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

Whining about not being able to repeatedly post racist and bigoted crap in a venue in the name of freedom of speech is much like complaining when you get ejected after repeatedly defecating in someone's swimming pool. Go buy yourself your own venue if you cannot tolerate the fact that the owners of this site will moderate the content within.

3

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

The commenter in question was repeatedly warned about his racist postings. I guess private property rights mean nothing to you. Using your logic, I'm sure you'll have no problem if I step into your parlor and relieve myself on your carpet.

3

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

Sure it does. What is different from you being a private homeowner enforcing your boundaries and a website owner enforcing standards of behavior?

2

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

You are confusing freedom of speech with being allowed to write comments on a privately owned website.

3

chootspa 1 year, 9 months ago

That is owned by a mega conservative, I might add.

2

tomatogrower 1 year, 9 months ago

Anyone involved in the Bush administrations decision to cut taxes during wartime should be charged with treason.

1

Kendall Simmons 1 year, 9 months ago

Uh, no. That's not what the chart tells you. The default is "total direct revenue as percent of GDP". At that point, 2007 and 2000 look the same...and are both the highest.

However! That's not what you said. You said the Bush era tax cuts produced the greatest tax revenue in history.

As a result, you need to correctly change the parameters of the chart. Do so, and suddenly your claim vanishes into the wind.

1

Greg Cooper 1 year, 9 months ago

I am not an economist, but it seems to me that throwing around numbers that "prove" revenue was higher at one time than another ignores inflation. For example, and it can be found with a simple google search, look at the value of a dollar in terms of buying power as opposed to today's.

For example, according to data provided by Oregon State University, $10,000 today is equal to $3590 in 1980 dollars. So, does it not follow that you can compare about 36% of the 2007 revenue to the revenue generated in 1980?

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

When Obama extended the tax cuts, wasn't it at the threat of Republicans refusing to continue aid to the unemployed? They certainly showed their priorities with that move.

2

Armstrong 1 year, 9 months ago

Have you noticed Barry attempting to pimp the exact same ideas he had in '08 ? Why do you suppose he is selling the same lame promises of 4 years ago and not talking about what he has accomplished. I'll make this easy for the liberal crowd. Because Barry has not accomplished any of the empty promises from the last go round. Barry has not moved the country forward. Barry is still the most clueless guy in any room he walks into in DC.

2

Richard Heckler 1 year, 9 months ago

--- Face it neither WOMEN nor Republicans nor Democrats nor the Middle class can afford the Republican Party!

-- Women will be getting more republican big government in there lives? It is on the way! http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/05/3849961/joel-brinkley-gop-would-impose.html

--- Public Education is a strong player in new Economic Growth yet republicans starve the system of funding which starves our teachers of resources. Which starves the desired level of education = stealing from our children’s future.

--- "Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocates for total global military domination” (Very dangerous position which threatens OUR freedoms and the nations security) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century

--- Republicans want to kill PBS and NPR - NO I want my tax dollars to support PBS and NPR

--- Publicopoly Exposed frankly is a threat to Democracy - ALEC http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/11603/publicopoly_exposed/ http://www.justice.org/cps/rde//justice/hs.xsl/15044.htm

--- Killing Social Security Insurance Is Not An Option. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

--- Killing Medicare Insurance is simply not an option. http://www.thenation.com/article/159769/paul-ryans-plan-destroy-medicare

2

Richard Heckler 1 year, 9 months ago

Herein lies the problems with the deficit.

--- The repub party declared the day Obama was elected their primary function would be to make Obama a one term president. Consequently their millions of NO votes became the disastrous campaign against women,The USA, jobs for Americans and against economic growth. --- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/09/did-republicans-deliberately-crash-us-economy

--- Another huge contributor looks like this.

--- Ask yourself is the market value of your home worth less than your mortgage? How much market value have home owners lost since 2007? Trillions of $$$$.

--- This 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

--- This 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

2

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

Do Republican women like it when they're called "irresponsible" for using hormonal birth control by their male overlords, who see no difference between this and "abortion on demand"? Is this craving for control something they've been taught, or have inherited? Will their hubbies and boyfriends even allow them out to vote on election day?

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

"Ryan is one of the sponsors of a federal personhood bill, which would declare that any fertilized ovum “shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” The bill would not just ban abortions, it would ban hormonal birth control — that is, the pill — as well, because such contraception works by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus. And there are no exceptions even for rape and incest. That idea is so extreme that it was rejected soundly even by ultra-conservative Mississippi two years ago. It’s been rejected all over the country by wide margins. It’s wildly unpopular, even among Republicans.

But that’s just the beginning. He actually goes even further than that. Remember that terrible Virginia bill that would force any woman seeking an abortion to undergo an invasive ultrasound even if their doctor says it’s medically unnecessary? Ryan is one of the sponsors of a bill, the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, to do that on the federal level. This, again, puts him on the furthest right wing fringe of his own party.

Mitt Romney has tried to have it both ways on this issue. He was pro-choice — he once told a story about a family friend who died from a botched abortion to explain why he was pro-choice and said “You will never hear me waver on that” — until he decided to run for president because he knew he couldn’t win the Republican nomination without sounding stridently anti-choice. So last year he said he “absolutely” supported a personhood amendment."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/08/15/paul-ryan-and-reproductive-rights/

1

Armstrong 1 year, 9 months ago

What does this have to do with Barry and his defecit ? Same lib tactic, when Barry gets in trouble deflect the conversation ! Problem is Barry is always in trouble.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

Do the "irrseponsible" Republican women in your family all trust in you as their womb monitor? Do you favor removing their access to hormonal birth control? By the way ~ our president isn't in any sort of "trouble." Just wait and see.

0

Armstrong 1 year, 9 months ago

Earth to moonbat, please see above post

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

A brilliant philosopher once said... when conservatives start losing the debate, they often resort to name calling.

0

Armstrong 1 year, 9 months ago

What bathroom wall did that come off of

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

In an October 2011 article, ThinkProgress's Alex Seitz-Wald wrote:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) told Fox News host Mike Huckabee this weekend that he would support an amendment to his state’s constitution to define life as beginning at conception, which would outlaw abortion and potentially many forms of contraceptionas well. Noting that the state supreme court forced the inclusion of abortion coverage in Romney’s universal health care law, the GOP presidential front-runner said the only way to undo the decision would be a constitutional amendment. Asked if he would support such a move, Romney replied, “absolutely”:

HUCKABEE: Would you have supported a constitutional amendment that would have established definition of life beginning of life at conception?

ROMNEY: Absolutely.

In the aftermath of the Akin debacle, Romney now asserts he believes there should be exceptions in law for rape, incest, and life of the mother. That he has a new position this week on the right to safe abortion care is not surprising, given he has changed his position so many times it is difficult to keep track. But Mitt Romney is on the record many times as saying he "unequivocally" supports a personhood/human life law, which unequivocally bans abortion and as per above hormonal contraception and other critical health interventions. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/08/22/romney-supports-total-abortion-ban-no-exceptions-but-fools-media-into-reporting-o Also:

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

"Ohio’s personhood campaign was just one of many similar efforts driven by conservatives nationwide, who want state laws to reflect their religious belief that an embryo is actually viable human life. In order to protect what they believe is a human life, anti-abortion advocates have proposed bills and constitutional amendments in states across the country that would make virtually all abortions illegal and even ban hormonal birth control drugs, which they claim “kills” children. Hormonal birth control does not kill children, but it does prevent ovulation." http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/04/ohio-personhood-campaign-aborted-after-signature-drive-implodes/

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

Paul Ryan Could Consider Every Woman Who Has A Miscarriage A Murder Suspect August 13, 2012 By Ayla Ryan We’ve all read numerous reports on Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan’s radical fiscal conservatism. Somewhat lesser known is his stance on reproductive rights in which standard methods of birth control could be made illegal, abortion would become a criminal act and women who suffer miscarriages would be murder suspects.

In his 1500 word essay The Cause of Life Can’t be Severed from the Cause of Freedom, Paul Ryan does not use the word “woman” once, nor does he use the word “mother” or make any reference to the women carrying the pregnancy. Apparently, they do not factor into the equation. Ryan compares Roe v Wade to Dred Scott v Sandford, in which the Supreme Court denied the rights of blacks. He argues that the Supreme Court made a serious mistake in Dred Scott that was repeated in Roe v Wade. One can only draw the conclusion here that a woman’s right to her own body is as serious a wrongdoing as denying someone their rights based on their skin color. The irony of this stance seems to elude Ryan.

Ryan is also named as a co-sponsor on H.R. 212, known as the Sanctity of Human Life Act. The act seeks to define a fertilized (or cloned) egg as a person from the moment the sperm enters the ovum. This would not only make abortion illegal, but would criminalize many forms of popular birth control, as well as miscarriages. (The text of this bill can be found here) If a fertilized egg is considered a human being, not allowing one to come to term would be considered murder — therefore, Intra Uterine Devices, or IUDs, which work by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterine wall would be considered illegal. The birth control pill, which does the same job as a copper IUD except with hormones would also be made illegal if this bill passes.

Additionally, since an unexplained death requires investigation, this would give the police and federal agents license to investigate every miscarriage to determine whether it qualifies as murder, or accidental death. Not only do women lose the right to make their own decisions, they lose the ability to mourn the loss of a wanted pregnancy, and gain the fear that they may find themselves incarcerated for having a miscarriage. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-could-consider-every-woman-who-has-a-miscarriage-a-murder-suspect/

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

Ryan Supports Mandatory Ultrasounds, Opposes Contraception and Abortion http://leanforward.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/13/13265885-ryan-supports-mandatory-ultrasounds-opposes-contraception-and-abortion?lite Paul Ryan may be best known for his economic policies, but as Rachel Maddow reported on Monday, he's also staked out a far-right position reproductive health.

In fact, Ryan has proposed national bills to effectively ban abortion—even in cases where the mother's life is at risk—and many forms of hormonal birth control as well as in vitro fertilization. The Republican vice presidential candidate also supports a federal version of the personhood amendment that failed in Mississippi last fall, which would have declared that life begins at fertilization.


Maddow speculated that perhaps Romney had picked Ryan as his running mate instead of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell because McDonnell "blew it" when he signed a mandatory ultrasound bill into law earlier this year. The controversial law, which went into effect July 1, requires women to have transvaginal ultrasounds before they can have an abortion. Romney may have thought Ryan was a "budget wonk guy with none of that baggage," said Maddow, but Ryan has supported a federal version of the same bill.

"Welcome 'Congressman Ultrasound' to the Republican ticket," she said.

0

texburgh 1 year, 9 months ago

So what was Dolph's position when his good buddy George W. Bush was putting two wars on a credit card and slashing taxes for his millionaire chums? Is Dolph now ready to pay his fair share of taxes? What does Dolph think about Brownback letting business owners off the hook completely for income taxes in Kansas? Of course, Kansas won't have a deficit since that's unconstitutional but what Dolph will get to experience are dramatic cuts to some of his favorite things include KU. But then, Dolph surely sides with Romney who says everyone is entitled to all the education they can afford.

Dolph and his "reasoning" simply helped me make a decision to dump both my subscription the LJW and my contract with Sunflower (back when he owned it). He's bad for Kansas, bad for Lawrence.

3

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Source for that please?

And, did the budget include paying for the wars, or were they "off budget" items?

0

Chris Golledge 1 year, 9 months ago

"Do voters believe Romney’s policies can create 12 million new jobs in four years..."

There are economists who believe that there will be 12 million new jobs whether or not Romney is elected.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/26/163719000/economists-romneys-12-million-jobs-target-realistic-even-if-he-loses

"There has been little reaching across the aisle by Sen. President Harry Reid or Rep. Nancy Pelosi."

Well, in fairness, this would be difficult since the Republicans have basically signed a pledge to not negotiate, and any Republican who waivers on that gets bumped.

Problems I have with Romney: He refuses to accept the reality of climate change; he doesn't want to borrow money to pay for educational programs, but he does want to borrow money to build more bombs that the Pentagon has not asked for; he believes in limited government, unless it is the government deciding who can marry who; and, he changes what he says pretty much as often as he changes who he is talking to.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

Just as I'd expected, the staunch Romney/Ryan supporters here have yet to provide a SINGLE cogent reason why including a ban on hormonal birth control ~ a major issue for Ryan and Romney both ~ is good government in any form, and should be included in any "Personhood" effort. We've instead heard accusations of irresponsibility hurled toward women who use birth control (even comparing them to those who use "abortion on demand") and the usual vitriol they fling toward anyone who questions the reasoning behind any of their efforts. The disrespect of women is, apparently, a new core family value among Republicans.

Remember this ~ of all the critical issues facing the nation, expecting women and men alike to sign off sovereignity of their private decisions will certainly trump any economic arguments taking place. Those who are capable of thinking for themselves will certainly triumph and send carpetbaggers Romney and Ryan a packin'.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

It's reproductive freedom, personal liberties, and respect for human rights ~ including those who Mitt and Ryan want to control and subjugate. And if a staunch supporter as yourself can provide no justification for this "Personhood" malarkey, then there must not be any.

0

Armstrong 1 year, 9 months ago

Hey Pastor_ maybe you can beat this one to death like yourworstnightmare did about Romneys taxes. Really it doesn't got boring or annoying at all.

1

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

I'd figured that such a staunch supporter of all things Ryan/Romney as yourself that you'd be able to explain to the rest of us why this is good government.

Since you've got no response in defense of them, I guess on this issue we agree their proposal is certainly not good government.

No wonder Colin Powell endorsed Obama.

0

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 9 months ago

Good point. Why hasn't Romney released his returns? What is he hiding? W know he is an out of touch rich guy who disdains 47% of Americans and has his money in off shore tax shelters.

What more could be revealed in his taxes? That he paid less than 15% in income tax? No, we already know that.

What is Romney hiding in his tax returns? Can we trust him if he is shady enough to keep his returns secret?

1

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 9 months ago

Why do republicans care about deficits only when a democrat is in the White House.

Dick Cheney, vice president just four years ago, famously said deficits don't matter. Most of his GOP buddies in the house and senate then agreed.

Now, deficits are destroying the country, according to them.

Were the GOP lying then, or are they lying now?

2

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 9 months ago

You didn't answer the question. Just provided an ad hominem attack. Typical.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

Welcome back! You won't last long at this rate, though. Forgot Kenyan, too.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

By myself? No, your momma says hi. Hey Dolph that guy who likes to take dumps in your pool is back.

0

Flap Doodle 1 year, 9 months ago

Here's how a Democrat in Colorado dealt with her own deficit: "...JEFFERSON COUNTY, Colo. (CBS4)- The woman named “Democrat of The Year” this year by the Jefferson County Democratic Party has been convicted of felony theft by a Jefferson County jury for stealing from a developmentally disabled 71-year-old woman. “The jury did right,” said Cindy Maxwell, an advocate for the victim. On Thursday, a jury convicted 66-year-old Estelle Carson of felony identify theft and felony theft from an at risk adult for stealing checks from the woman and using them to pay her own cable, cell phone and internet bills... Nearly as bothersome as the theft itself to Maxwell and other supporters of the victim, is the fact the Jefferson County Democratic Party was made aware of the ongoing criminal investigation and honored Carson anyway. According to documents obtained by CBS4, in November of 2011, the Jeffco Democratic Party announced it planned to honor Carson for her activism on behalf of Democratic causes and her efforts to register voters..." http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/10/26/jeffco-democrat-of-the-year-convicted-of-felony-theft/

1

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 9 months ago

Oh I'm sure Romney has no problem with birth control. What's he going to do otherwise? Take on the Supreme Court? What neither he NOR you will admit is that the Blunt amendment and cutting contraception from Medicaid coverage will limit access. Nor will either of you admit that defunding Planned Parenthood will have a terrible impact on access for poor women. So let's modify the statement, shall we? He has no problem with access for women that can pay cash.

0

Pastor_Bedtime 1 year, 9 months ago

I provided you with several. I guess reading isn't fundamental anymore. Why is this forced birth agenda any business of a "small, limited government"? Such arrogance. Ask a few women outside your compound how they feel about the issue before you insert yourself in their private decisions.

0

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 9 months ago

So you give me an op ed from 2008? Real timely, there.

0

Armstrong 1 year, 9 months ago

That would fall under the if the show still fits catagory cait

0

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 9 months ago

The GOP would have everyone think that the last GOP president was Ronald Reagan, and that the 2008 recession was caused by Bill Clinton's policies, because there was no president from 2000-2008.

It's almost as if Bush and Cheney are in witness protection (witless protection?).

Bush (two wars on the credit card and a tax cut for the rich) and Cheney (deficits don't matter) were president and vice president a mere four years ago.

Romney's plans are Bush-Cheney v.2. Tax cuts for the wealthy, increasing defense spending, and putting it all on the credit card.

George Bush may be forgotten by the GOP, but his policies are abundant in Romney.

1

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 8 months ago

The scariest thing for the GOP this Halloween will be the ghost of Dubya.

Booooooo!

Booooooo! by yourworstnightmare

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.