Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Better off

September 19, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

As Scott Flitcraft decided to respond to Steven Bruner’s letter, I am moved to respond in kind.

Flitcraft bases his rebuttal to Bruner on three points: the country and the economy are not better off than four years ago; he agrees we have poor memories; and we have “a health care bill that the majority of the country would like to see repealed.”

It appears that Flitcraft, at least, certainly has a poor memory. He seems to forget that, when President Obama took office, the economy was in free fall. Are we better off? We were headed for bread lines, now we’re headed for a return to prosperity.

Regarding the Affordable Care Act, when asked if “Obamacare” should be repealed, a selection of recent polls shows just over 50% in favor. However, many of these respondents indicate they feel the law didn’t go far enough. In addition, when asked about specific provisions of the law, such as covering pre-existing conditions, a large majority are in favor.

Simply put, Flitcraft has bought the Republican “Obamacare” propaganda. When folks are asked if they like BS, they’ll say no. Ask them if they like organic fertilizer and they’ll say yes.

Comments

fiddleback 2 years, 4 months ago

So are you going to keep that avatar past Nov. 7th?

chootspa 2 years, 4 months ago

47% of the people, including retirees and soldiers, will never actually like that icon. Personally, it makes me giggle because the microphone looks a bit like an ascot. Probably not the intended messaging.

deec 2 years, 4 months ago

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters favor repeal, while 43% are opposed."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

3% is hardly a "mass majority."

deec 2 years, 4 months ago

Relying on data over 3 months old? Here's some newer info: 42% approve, 46% disapprove, and 12% unsure. That vast majority sure keeps getting smaller.

http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

deec 2 years, 4 months ago

I apologize. I should have said "vast majority." Same difference, since the two words are synonyms. http://thesaurus.com/browse/vast

"The vast majority of Americans want ObumbleCare repealed and we will get it killed."

Richard Heckler 2 years, 4 months ago

Yes voters do have short memories. When Reagan asked if Americans were better off than 4 years before Reagan/Bush responded this way.

This 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

Then Bush/Cheney did a repeat performance inflicting ever more damage to the economy and job market.

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

How many jobless republicans are better off as a result of republican economic destruction?

Can republicans afford to vote republican ever again?

Republicans have made owing a home very risky business. How many republicans and democrats want to owe more on their homes than they are worth?

Richard Heckler 2 years, 4 months ago

Not only that. In the end big debt and super duper bailouts HAVE BEEN the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.

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

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

ANOTHER 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.

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

jaywalker 2 years, 4 months ago

Oh yeah, we're "returning to prosperity" all right.

From the Wall Street Journal: " Egan-Jones Ratings Co. said Friday it downgraded its U.S. sovereign rating to AA- from AA on concerns that the Fed's new round of quantitative easing, or QE3, will hurt the U.S. economy. The ratings agency said the Fed's plan of buying $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities a month and keeping interest rates near zero does little to raise GDP, reduces the value of the dollar, and raises the price of commodities. "From 2006 to present, the US's debt to GDP rose from 66% to 104% and will probably rise to 110% a year from today under current circumstances; the annual budget deficit is 8%," Egan-Jones said in a note. "In comparison, Spain has a debt to GDP of 68.5% and an annual budget deficit of 8.5%.""

Carol Bowen 2 years, 4 months ago

Did you miss the part where the Fed, S&P, etc. are anxious because congress has not been able to put together a budget of tax increases and spending cuts? Best not to take quotes out of context.

jaywalker 2 years, 4 months ago

What are you babbling about? The above is the full quote I read in the Wall Street Journal. And who give's a rats if they're "anxious"?! Printing 40 billion out of thin air, no backing, EVERY day - that AIN'T the way to "return to prosperity." It is the way to further devalue the dollar and push up closer to hyper-inflation.
Best not to butt in when you don't have a clue. .

Carol Bowen 2 years, 4 months ago

While the ratings are not a measure of prosperity, you did refer to ratings, so here is a quote from FOX news, 9/11/2012.

"Ironically, Moody's said one of the few ways the U.S. could maintain its current status, of triple-A with a "negative outlook," would be if Congress actually lets those tax hikes and spending cuts happen.  But even that doesn't guarantee a sterling credit score. Going over the "fiscal cliff" would help close the deficit, but the flip side is it could destabilize the economy. And Moody's said it would need evidence the economy could "rebound" before returning the U.S. rating to triple-A and "stable." 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/11/boehner-expresses-no-confidence-on-budget-deal/#ixzz26xGb5uQ5

Carol Bowen 2 years, 4 months ago

As for prosperity, the Dow Jones is up, the housing market is improving, and unemployment is not tanking. THE CPI is not improving and interest on savings is too low, but overall everything is stable or improving rather than getting worse.

jaywalker 2 years, 4 months ago

"While the ratings are not a measure of prosperity, you did refer to ratings"

I didn't refer to ratings, the initial post is all a quote. Your first reply of these last two is fairly pointless unless you're intent is to back up my initial post. The Dow is not a measure of prosperity in the U.S., the housing market is hardly moving but anything's better than dead on the table so that's not significant, and the unemployment rate is pathetic and doesn't come close to accounting for all those still out of work. Sorry, we're not even close to "returning to prosperity."

grammaddy 2 years, 4 months ago

If you believe all the religious hype, even Bin Laden is in a betterplace than he was 4 years ago.

Armstrong 2 years, 4 months ago

If you believe all the libeal hype, we are on the right path. Organic fertilizer

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 4 months ago

Bin Laden tried and Jesus said, "Game over!"

Shelley Bock 2 years, 4 months ago

I wonder what suggestions other than what was enacted would have been proposed to move the economy out of recession in 2009. Does this include the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler? Would this proposal have been greater austerity than what has occurred? I've read that a criticism of the stimulus program was that it didn't go far enough. Do you believe that is correct? In other words, what would you have done to make things better than 4 years ago?

I've always thought if tax cuts tend to spur the economy forward as is proposed by the Romney, why haven't the Bush tax cuts made recovery possible.

fiddleback 2 years, 4 months ago

Of course all they know is trickle-down; it's alpha and omega of their domestic policy.

Even Reagan's budget director finds it grotesquely absurd: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html

Meanwhile, if you actually look at the stimulus... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dont-tell-anyone-but-the-stimulus-worked.html

Shelley Bock 2 years, 4 months ago

I disagree with you on the "proven plan" and the projected results. But, at least you were willing to respond and I thank you for that.

geekin_topekan 2 years, 4 months ago

Hey! What has become of Falsie no Changie?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 4 months ago

Probably back in the troll shop getting prepared for the next reincarnation.

Orwell 2 years, 4 months ago

He's at Costco picking up a new jumbo-size tub of quotation marks.

FlintlockRifle 2 years, 4 months ago

And the answer is==================coming after the first of year 2013

Eddie_Haskell 2 years, 4 months ago

Funny, Steven Bruner writes these letters that show him as some kind of loving human being. Just don't show up at his office without health insurance. He'll toss you out the door.

tbaker 2 years, 4 months ago

Mr. Burger - we are not "headed for prosperity."

Mr. Obama's policies have put our country in decline. We are headed in the other direction.

John Hamm 2 years, 4 months ago

"Are we "better off?" Yes?" You're kidding me. Fuel costs higher, food costs higher, unemployment worse, number of unemployed workers still looking for a job worse, deficit worse (BO did it in 3, Bush took 8), energy independence worse, Obamacare "it's not a tax" "Oh, thank God they said it was a tax!" On and on and on and........ Open your eyes people it's one heck of a lot worse.

deec 2 years, 4 months ago

Well, Obama may have said this 14 years ago. Romney disparaged nearly half the population this year. The tape has not been confirmed by the Obama campaign.

Referring to efforts to restore the efficacy of government, then-Illinois state Sen. Obama said: “The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some [wealth] redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/obama-loyola-speech-leaked-redistribution_n_1894625.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

deec 2 years, 4 months ago

And Romney may have liked dressing up as a state trooper and pulling over motorists in college.. What's your point?

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82796475/

deec 2 years, 4 months ago

The only one shrieking here is you.

headdoctor 2 years, 4 months ago

This sound bite may cause Romney just as much grief especially after his bumbling effort at damage control.

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

deec 2 years, 4 months ago

I guess that means Mitt's grandpa, were he alive, wouldn't vote for him.

tbaker 2 years, 4 months ago

Tell me deec, what exactly was disparaging about what Mr. Romney said? Point it out. Since he didn't utter a single falsehood, the truth must have your panties in a wad.

If Mr. Romney backs away from his comments in the days to come, politically this will turn out to be a stupid mistake. On the other hand, if he stands his ground and invites further debate on his remarks then this could be a winning issue for him. The dems are on very thin ice with the statistics Mr. Romney is supposedly in trouble for talking about.

Don't forget deec, liberals measure compassion by the number of people receiving government assistance. Conservatives measure it by the number of people who no longer need it becuase they can take care of themselves.

deec 2 years, 4 months ago

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.

There is no factual support for the assertion that only those who do not pay Federal income tax would support Obama.

All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ...

This statement assumes that the not quite 47% of people who do not pay Federal income tax are all receiving some form of government assistance. Retirees and the working poor may not pay income taxes, but it is an assumption that they are also receiving benefits. If one considers Social Security to be a government benefit, then that group would receive benefits. However, retirees paid into the system.

It also ignores the fact that people without federal tax obligation pay other forms of taxes, like sales tax, payroll taxes and property taxes. They may also pay state taxes, since state tax rates vary.

My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

This statement implies that he isn't worried or concerned with the welfare of nearly half the population. It also perpetuates the stereotype that the poor are somehow irresponsible and uncaring, and therefore deserve to be poor.

tbaker 2 years, 4 months ago

  1. Go to the Tax Policy Center. You’ll find data showing that in 2011, 46.4 percent of American households paid no federal income tax.

  2. YOU are assuming, not Mr. Romney. He didn’t say you drew some kind of government assistance if you didn’t pay income taxes. Strawman fail.

  3. The point is clear: If you are drawing some kind of government assistance, common sense says there is a far greater likelihood you will vote for the candidate who does the best job of convincing you that your government check will keep on coming if he gets elected.

  4. The statement does not mean he isn’t concerned with half the country. To the contrary, someone receiving government assistance is something he is very much concerned about. It is an indication of a failed life. That concerns him as it does all conservatives. Don’t forget deec, liberals measure compassion by how many people are receiving government assistance. Conservatives measure it by how many people no longer need it.

  5. But even if we play your game and assume what I just wrote is wrong and his remarks really do reflect what he thinks, again I ask, what is disparaging about that? He is simply telling it like it is.

A large and growing part of the country depends on some form of government assistance. A shrinking minority has to work to pay for it. We borrow 41 cents of every dollar the government spends ($2 million every minute) We have accumulated a massive and very dangerous amount of debt. The Federal Reserve is now printing money to buy US debt and devaluing the US dollar. How crazy is that? Right now the federal and state governments are spending nearly a trillion dollars a year on means-tested entitlements. Those are payments OTHER than Social Security and Medicare. More than 46 million Americans are now receiving food stamps. That's a record. Nearly nine million Americans are now on federal disability, another record. And more than 100 million Americans, 35 percent of the population, are living in a household receiving some kind of welfare.

Like I said, what is disparaging about this? A Nanny State is what Mr. Obama wants. He has done a great job growing the Nanny State in his term. It is his single greatest achievement. A lot of people voted for him, and will again precisely because of this. In comparison, Romney is not a Nanny State guy and wants people to be more self-reliant. All Romney said was the folks who like the Nanny State plan Mr. Obama is running are not going to vote for him.

I really hope he stands his ground. The country needs to have this debate. Is government going to rob from Peter to pay Paul and take care of people, or is government going to help people take care of themselves?

fiddleback 2 years, 4 months ago

tbaker/Quantrill groupie: "Since he didn't utter single falsehood..."

Oh please. Mitt put a few half-truths in a blender and conflated a bunch of things nonsensically. But then I don't blame you for not bothering to parse it; it's so much easier to nod along to the wonderful truthiness...

Reality check: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/how-do-the-47-vote/

"What exactly was disparaging..." If you can't see the disparagement in accusing half the country of playing the victim and refusing to take personal responsibility for their lives, then you're far more obtuse than I thought. But we can agree in hoping he doubles down on his contempt for anyone receiving social security or tax credits.

somedude20 2 years, 4 months ago

rockchalk1977 , is this you? Mirrors what you say and even has your avatar in it. KKKeep up your fine worKKK!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.