Las Vegas Sun

July 23, 2014

Currently: 105° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Romney may be channeling Nixon

Mitt Romney’s economic plan to reform taxes and reduce the deficit is reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s Secret Plan to end the Vietnam War in 1968.

Nixon refused to give details and when elected, actually ramped up the war by bombing Cambodia and invading Laos. Romney releases no details of his plan, and all economists warn that his only option to make things revenue-neutral is to repeal middle-class tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction.

Is Romney obfuscating reality and channeling Nixon?

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 50 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Tax reform must start somewhere. Romney has issued a book titled Believe in America in which he outlines his income taxation policy. The main concern expressed in this matter is the reduction or elimination of certain popular tax deductions, such as for mortgage interest. The plan that Romney defines calls for a long term goal to pursue a lower, flatter, fairer and simpler structure but on a broader tax base. As a middle class American, this plan interests me keenly. I also realize that if the tax structure is to be fair, that about 50% of current wage earners who pay no federal income taxes ,but enjoy the benefits of the infrastucture and national defense in America, should pay some contribution toward these benefits. The current tax system in which 1% of the wage earners pay nearly 40% of the federal income tax burden is both callous and unsustainable.

  2. See page 37 in Believe in America

    http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/...

  3. Where has the letter writer been all his life? Watching MTV? Romney has been cystal clear on his economic policies to overcome Keynesian Obamanomics. I've posted the plan here several times for readers and posters. It's called Americanomics.
    CarmineD

  4. It's not true that Romney doesn't release details in his plan. Just go to MittRomney.com to read them.

    However, like President Obama's plan, it would be DOA in Congress and it isn't revenue neutral.

    Romney wants to lower almost all tax rates and wants to pay for them buy cutting many government expenditures. The cuts will never pass Congress.

    Obama wants to increase taxes on the rich to pay for another huge stimulus. That won't pass Congress either and just taxing the rich will never solve our fiscal problems.

    Romney and the R's need to level with us and admit that raising taxes on everyone plus cutting government spending is the only way out for us.

    Likewise, Obama and the D's must level with us and admit that raising taxes on the rich is not nearly enough, taxes must go up on everyone, and that cutting government spending has to be a part of the solution.

    The letter writer is correct in that Romney is omitting the fact that elimination of popular tax deductions would be necessary as part of a revenue neutral plan.

    Obama omits the fact that just raising taxes on the rich has zero chance of making his plan revenue neutral. His plan would require raising taxes on all Americans to be viable.

    This is the problem folks. We are still being fed 'baby pablum' by these parties, the President, Romney and Congress. I would like to hear the 'truth' instead.... from someone.

    Michael

  5. Mr. Casler:

    Obamanomics has accomplished nothing in 4 years except allow the president to play golf at taxpayers' expense to improve his handicap. Romney doesn't play golf. He says he doesn't have 4 hours a day to waste while Americans are suffering economically and socially. Sounds like Romney is telling the truth.

    CarmineD

  6. Carmine,

    I plan to vote for Romney, just like you but it would be nice if you showed a sign or two of understanding that Romney's plan is just slightly better than Obama's. Is it as impossible for an R supporter to admit that their sides plan isn't what is needed as it is for a D supported to admit that about Obama's plan?

    Michael

  7. Page 37 isn't a plan, it's a joke.

  8. Jeff,

    First of all, I don't hate Obama. I disagree with his philosophy and his policies. He's done some things I like and I can name them if you wish.

    However, I am fiscally conservative so I favor paying for what government spends. There is no party that really believes that anymore. President Obama wants to grow government and that is fine (although not my preferred solution) but wants only (for now) to ask the wealthy to pay higher taxes. When we spend 1 trillion more per year than comes in and are 15.5 trillion in debt, that's not a viable plan.

    Romney wants to double down on the tax cuts and not ask any American to pay more. See the last two sentences in the previous paragraph.

    So, this is wonderful. Two choices of two plans that are not what we need.

    If Romney wants tax cuts, he should be willing to call for and fight for the DRASTIC cuts in all areas of spending necessary to make his plan revenue neutral. He won't.

    If Obama wants another stimulus, he should be willing to raise taxes on all Americans to balance that spending. He won't.

    Romney or Obama, I am convinced we will follow the path we are on until the American standard of living declines for enough Americans where we reach a tipping point where our society starts to unravel. At that point, I hope I am dead, but if not, I hope Americans finally reject people and plans like Obama's and Romney's and either decide they want less spending or more taxing.

    We are being offered a fantasy by both sides....more spending and less taxes. It's a fantasy, no matter who is offering it.

    To me, the D philosophy is more and bigger government, deficit spending, plaster as much of the tax burden as you can on the wealthy and let's more forward.

    The R philosophy is more and bigger government (although they at least promise otherwise), much lower taxes on the wealthy job creators, some tax reductions for the middle class and let's move forward.

    Those are both terrible philosophies that will lead to our financial destruction if not altered and I hold my nose when choosing but at least the R's say what I believe but unfortunately, usually do the opposite.

    Michael

  9. Romney says we have a 'moral obligation' to follow Israel in their war with Iran. He also wants to increase military spending above and beyond what it is now. Mitt is fighting evil in the world and the checkbook will open to the White House.

    He has said where the money is coming from: Dept of Urban Housing, Dept. of Education and health care and in part - social programs will be downsized and the money spent on military build-ups. Republicans since Reagan have always wanted to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and he will try again.

    Romney wants the world to obey him. His business associates know that war budgets make billionaires for the few with special access and the unfortunate pay the price and the privileged are bankrolling his campaign for a shot at easy money.

  10. Romney won't release any plans on anything.

    If he did, no one would vote for him. I'd go one step further. He doesn't have a plan. Only snippets emerge. From what is seen so far, he really enjoys stuff that will benefit....himself. He will take care of the rich. To which he is one. He will take care of more subsidies for big oil. Because they fill his coffers with campaign money. And to reward them, he participates in trying to destroy any type of other energy sources that big oil feels are a threat.

    Romney can't avoid who he is. He's a vulture. A venture capitalist who makes his money off of making other people fail and suffer. All in order to make his wallet fat and overflowing with money, his tax havens around the world bulge with cash, and buy his unbelievable excesses like a car elevator and a properly trained dressage horse. A horse that lives better than most Americans.

    My question to people out there is simple.

    How exactly are you going to put a man like him in the White House, a man who thinks only of running Government like a business, and expect to get a fair shake? You ain't. The way he looks at poverty is he wants to hand out pink slips to the disabled, all senior citizens and the very poor, accusing them of under performance.

    Next question people need to really, really think about is this... How can you put a man in charge of this nation, and expect him to manage the economy, when he does not provide transparency about even his own finances? Romney is hiding something. Something that will jeopardize his chances to become President. This is why his poll numbers are tanking. But he's taking a chance. Because he knows if he DID release his tax returns, it's over. Political self-destruction. Game change. His whole campaign will fall apart like a house of cards in a strong wind.

    Another question... Why would you make a man President that wants to essentially destroy not only a women's health organization (Planned Parenthood), not to mention grasping the evil Ryan Plan that would end Medicare as we know it to be comprised of now and replace it with a totally inferior and stupid voucher system, but also gut the Affordable Care Act, replacing it with nothing, as well? You make him President, THOSE are the death camps that Sarah Palin warned about. And Romney would be the camp commandant for the entire United States.

    The things we know about Romney, the very few things that he lets out there, are disturbing. The guy is simply creepy. If you ask me, he's in desperate need of a personality implant.

    I shudder at the thought of an ultra-conservative, out of touch self-serving predator like Romney in the White House.

    I don't even like him talking to someone who visited the White House.

    I don't even want him looking at a picture of the White House.

    I don't even like him mentioning the White House.

    I don't even like him putting his hand on a wall that's painted white.

  11. With about 100 million Americans living on true welfare, a really unerving statistic, does anyone really believe that debating Mitt Romney's tax plan has any practical merit. I wish it did, but it doesn't.

    The top 1% of earners in America contribute 38.7% of the federal income taxes according to the Congressional Budget Office. Yet our socialist minded president wants to raise taxes on these prime contributors even more. As a side matter, nearly 50% of wage earning Americans pay no federal income taxes at all. A rude and unsustainable condition.

    Wealthier people are too smart to stand by while a far leftist president and his administration continue to rob them blind. More and more of them will leave America to live in more financially friendly environs, or place their money outside the system. The job creators and wealth generators will soon tire of being abused by an increasingly wealth grabbing society which is on a rapid decline--the well is running dry, and the POTUS in charge is the Killer in Chief of capitalistic wealth and incentives which have driven our economy for over two centuries.

    Unless America comes to its senses quickly, there is impending danger that an economic shipwreck will end many decades of American prosperity and supremacy in global markets. We are rapidly becoming a nation of food stamps and unemployment checks, and with no strings attached. Third world nation statehood approaches rapidly. We are in an economically rudderless ship, with clueless national leadership and with masses of Americans beholden to a government system that shouts out for major reforms and fresh new leadership that will invigorate demand at all levels, stimulate business and job creation and economic expansion.
    The only question is whether America has the guts to do anything about it!

  12. Bob Jack,

    I agree with much of what you write.

    I would add however that R's have been a large part of this decline, along with D's. R's, in the years after 2000, spent money (some of it necessary spending, much of it not) and rather than raise taxes to bring in needed revenue or moderate spending, they actually cut taxes instead, creating a giant debt.

    Once the financial wheels came off, it opened the door for Progressives, a door they'd been trying to open for decades, and they marched through it. Now we have so many people struggling that a justification exists for government to 'lend a hand'.

    At this point, I'd just level... admitting to errors in the past but explaining that blamming won't fix this. Either spending less, taxing more, or a combination of both will. Obama has no stated intention to tax everyone more or reduce spending and therefore, he cannot be allowed to continue to be in control.

    R's have a very tough hill to climb because they were in the drivers seat for 8 years (some of them good financially) and also there when everything went south starting in 2007.

    If enough Americans are smart, they will look at what this President's philosophy really is, the situation we face, take a deep breath and try someone new. I honestly don't think Americans are ready to do that only 5 years after 2007, but I suspect they will be more than ready in 2016.

    Michael

  13. When discussions of ending mortgage deductions took place during the stimulus debate this is what Bob Jack had to say in these comments on 3/4/09:

    "On the one hand this inexperienced President claims to seek stimulation of the economy by massively increasing welfare spending. On the other hand he disincentivizes stimulation by increasing taxes and reducing the interest deduction on home mortgages."

    Now Mr. Jack is keenly interested in eliminating the mortgage deduction and raising taxes on those who can least afford it.

    As far as 50% paying no federal income taxes; read this detailed and footnoted report titled Misconceptions and Realities about who pays taxes http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie...

    The vast majority who pay no federal income tax are senior citizens, students, and the disabled. THIS is who Romney wants to raise taxes on while cutting them for the top 1%, which include Romney who already only pays 13.9% on over 20 million in income.

  14. Mr Casler claims:
    "It's not true that Romney doesn't release details in his plan. Just go to MittRomney .com to read them."

    Since Mike has stated the details are available on Mitt's website, I'm sure Mike wouldn't mind answering a few questions about Mitt's "plan."

    Romney's general proposal includes extending the Bush tax cuts, reducing the corporate income tax rate, eliminating the estate tax and eliminating the taxation of investment income. He promises that this will reduce the deficit and pay down the debt.

    A question for Mike: Is Romney a magician? Even with drastic cuts to spending, how is it possible to accomplish all of this? Do you believe this is possible, even if he had 100% support of Congress?

    A question for Mike: Romney has called for the elimination or reduction of "tax breaks" and deductions as the payfor mechanism of his "plan." Which deductions, in particular, by how much would they be reduced or eliminated, and to whom would these eliminations or reductions apply to?

    And how can anyone claim that Romney's plan is on Romney's website, when the Tax Policy Center, a source Romney himself has praised in the past, found the following:

    "He would also expand the tax base by cutting back tax preferences, but has supplied no information on which preferences would be reduced."

    "The plan would recoup the revenue loss caused by those changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax. "

    "Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden."

    Is it fair to say one has a "plan" when the details of that plan are non-existent?

  15. Michael: Your comments are noted.

    Especially final year of GW term was a loss.
    Too much financial deregulation. The Dems get much blame for the housing meltdown. Most Of GW's two terms economy was resilient in spite of the terrorist strike, and wars.Pretty amazing performance. He also had to dig out of a recession he inherited. The libs don't remember.

    Regarding someones comment on my stance on mortgage interest deductions, I would not be for eliminating it,but would consider phasing it down for higher values and second homes. As part of a tax reform package.

  16. Mr. Casler et al:

    Lest you forget in Feb 2009 in a national TV interview with Matt Lauer, President Obama predestined his own future with his infamous words: If I don't turn this economy around in 3 years, I deserve to be a one term president. I hold him to his words.

    CarmineD

  17. CarmineD--I certainly agree,but with this hooligan, we can forget it.

  18. Bob Jack,

    I agree that the economy was resilient under Bush until the last year and a half, but I suspect alot of that was because he not only did not raise taxes, he cut them.

    Given what has happened since, I do question whether we'd have been better off overall if Bush had reigned in spending in some areas and raised taxes so we did not create such a huge debt.

    I believe higher taxes do stiffle the economy at some point, so philosophically, I side with R's. That said, neither R's or D's seem to be able to control their spending. If you can't control spending, how can you really keep taxes low. In this area, the R's seem to have no answer.

    D's can't control spending either and they just want to raise taxes on the wealthy. That cannot sustain this current spending or the spending D's want to do in the future, so to me, the D's have no answer either.

    Michael

  19. Mr. Chapline:

    You find excuses for not holding leaders to their words. I don't. Leaders are accountable for what they say and do. That's why we call them leaders. If they can't lead, and blame others, and find excuses, we call them losers.

    CarmineD

  20. Michael:

    Concur with your comments.

    Bob

  21. Carmine,

    According to the polls, right now Obama would win re-election. That could change, but I would not bet against Obama.

    Overall, I don't think Obama deserves high marks for his performance, but we are only 5 years out from a recession that started under Bush and R's, the R's nominated a weak candidate and R's really are unable to tell us how they could cut taxes on everyone, balance the budget and start to pay down the debt.

    D's also cannot explain how we could spend another trillion dollars or so on another stimulus, only raise taxes on the wealthy, balance the budget and start to pay down the debt.

    All in all, I find my choices to be awful and all our futures highly in doubt.

    Michael

  22. "Carmine,

    According to the polls, right now Obama would win re-election"

    Mr. Casler:

    The only poll that counts is the one taken on Nov 6.

    CarmineD

  23. Bob Jack,

    I sure wish there were alot more people who were willing to see what you and I seem to be able to see. If there were, I would hold our chances for a good recovery in high regard.

    What I see instead are millions that actually believe in the plans offered by Obama and the D's or Romney and the R's.

    They seem incapble of understanding that whether the government spends a ton more money and just raises taxes on the wealthy or spends a ton more money and cuts taxes, we won't be able to balance a budget and start to pay down the huge debt we have accumulated.

    It's truly sad and very scary.

    Michael

  24. Carmine,

    I said things could change and perhaps they will, but now is now and facts now are facts now. And now, Obama leads.

    Michael

  25. As a general rule Mr. Casler, voters don't focus on the elections until after the summer. Probably starting after Labor Day, then building up momentum through October with the presidential debates and to the election.

    Facts are always true. Polls always fluctuate.

    CarmineD

  26. Mr. Chapline:

    The only two likely politicians running for and likely to win the presidency are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Those are the two I'm focused on for now and the future. You want to live in the past, be my guest. Just don't ask me to join in.

    CarmineD

  27. I really don't know about Romney channeling Nixon.

    I kind of think Romney is more like a cartoon character in the "Ice Age" movies by the name of Scrat.

    Scrat is a prehistoric saber tooth squirrel who is always on the hunt for giant acorns, and subsequently tries desperately to hold onto them when he locates them. But always, through a series of ill timed events, he always ends up screaming in frustration when he is thwarted in his plans to hold onto them.

    Here's an episode with him uncovering a time machine, and it eventually ends up driving him crazy because he can't figure it out.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBUvbHYG...

  28. Bradley,

    I think former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney made many errors in their two terms, but I have yet to hear anyone present a case with facts that show these two individuals could be convicted of a crime. You name 'economic and foreign affair disasters'. Huh? These are now crimes? When did this happen?

    Isn't it enough that we disagree with policies without resorting to accusing people of crimes? What if the ACA turns out bad and doesn't bring down health care costs? What if some people are not allowed to keep their insurance and coverage? Should we prosecute President Obama for that?

    No we should not. If elected officials make policy errors, they are errors, not crimes.

    Michael

  29. Bradley,

    The Justice Department of a new President would probably be reluctant to prosecute the former President and Vice President of crimes while in office, even if evidence existed, so I think you wail and wish in vain.

    I don't know whether Bush ordered the invasion into Iraq because he was concerned about WMD's, he wanted to avenge his daddy, he is a war monger, or any other reason. I suspect only he and maybe a few others know that and they are not about to talk.

    There was and is still disagreement in the legal community as to whether the enhanced interrogration was torture.

    I do suspect that Haliburton received favored treatment and I would be fine with going after Cheney for it as long as you were willing to apply the same yardstick to the thousands of times this crap has happened in the past as well as when Obama donors connected to many of the green energy projects benefitted from the monetary awards. If we are going to clean house, let's clean house... completely. If not, then just shut up about it!

    You want to go after those that allowed Wall Steet to cheat, then bailed them out with tax dollars, then decided (Obama's Justice department) not to prosecute anyone... let's go for it.... but you better be ready to go after many R's and D's in Congress, now and then as well as many others. Otherwise... again... just shut up about it!

    Michael

  30. Bradley,

    I'm not a tough guy, am not interested in trying to scare you and I'm also not mad, so you're wrong on all counts.

    I am just pointing out that whatever any of us think about the former President and Vice President are opinions, not facts. They will not be prosecuted and if Americans ever really get serious about how our leaders act, I'll be with them. Partisan witch hunts? I'm not interested.

    Michael

  31. wtplv - "There was and is still disagreement in the legal community as to whether the enhanced interrogration was torture."

    The military defines torture as a crime, foreignors have been prosecuted as criminals because torture is a crime, United States citizens have been prosecuted for torture because it's a crime. There is no argument that any within the legal community can present altering the fact that torture is a crime, they can only ignore the law and pretend "waterboarding" isn't tortue. By the way, "waterboarding" was called Chinese water torture at one time.

  32. Vernos,

    I take it that you do not favor waterboarding, even for suspected terrorists. OK, that is your opinion and you have a right to hold it.

    These terrorists will kill more of us; maybe you, maybe me, maybe a loved one, maybe even thousands or millions of us if given the chance.

    I'd love to live in our cozy world of yesterday where we did not have to concern ourselves with this stuff... but I can't. I have to live in the here and now.

    I really don't agree with bending the rules so we can do something against the rules (except maybe in certain emergency situations), but I will offer a pass for what was done after the 9/11 murders.

    What I want to see is a real debate where the American public is presented with the risks of operating under all the current rules where terrorists are concerned (remember that terrorists have no rules... and BTW... do you support the drone murders by US drones) and changing the rules to better suit the current situation. President Bush decided to bend the rules. President Obama now has the option to call for that debate. I hope he does and I will abide by any decision the American public makes.

    I harken back to what was said in A Few Good Men: ... 'You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall'.

    I would hate to torture or waterboard anyone, but if the alternative might be that I or a loved one or many Americans are murdered, I'd do it.

    Or how about Air Force One where Harrison Ford's character refused to let the Russian general out of prison, until they were going to kill his daughter and then his 'standards' went out the window.

    I was alot more rigid on things like waterboarding and torture until I had to watch 3000 Americans murdered on real 'reality' TV and know many of them knew they were going to die, many others never knew what hit them, but ALL their loved ones knew exactly what was happening and had to watch, powerless to do anything, on TV.

    At that point, I wasn't as rigid as I used to be. I see your agument and I respect it. It's a confusing world....

    Michael

  33. Vernos,

    I'm not advocating no rules... yet... but we are moving in that direction... see US drone strikes.

    It is also instructive to look back at history. The definition of torture was active during a time when even the German Nazi's and the Japanese operated under the 'rules of war', even though they were sometimes violated.

    Please tell me what 'rules' the terrorists operate under? You can't.... because there are none. Murder civilians? No problem. Torture people...like Daniel Perl and others?... no problem. Mass murder?... no problem. Use of nuclear or biological weapons? No doubt, no conscience, no deliberation... just use them...now!

    How do we effectively combat that when we operate under rules and they have none? Not an easy question to answer...

    Michael

  34. Just another cheap shot trying to defame the Governor. Just trying to associate the successful smiling face of Romney with another negative image. Just compare the two major candidates mentally and see who is standing taller in every way.

  35. "I really don't agree with bending the rules so we can do something against the rules (except maybe in certain emergency situations), but I will offer a pass for what was done after the 9/11 murders."

    All it takes is for one person to "offer a pass..."

    Michael, wrong is wrong, and wrong is wrong. If you can't see that, I pity you, for you are beyond hope of ever understanding the statement above. Breaking the law, under ANY circumstance is breaking the law, and should be dealt with accordingly.. "Yes officer, I was speeding to get my pregnant wife to the hospital.." is a noble reason to run red lights, but you should still expect the consequences.

    two wrongs don't make a right...but three rights make a left...

  36. Patrick,

    I respect your views and they are similar to my own brother's views, who is pretty much black and white and that's all. That said, I think we take a risk of losing against terrorism if we play by all the rules and they play by none.

    I'll ask you the question I asked Vernos: Do you support the drone murders by US drones in the middle east?

    Michael

  37. Bradley,

    My inclination is to be offended and to begin with the same silly accusations you make, but I will refrain.

    You make assumptions and accuse me not thinking there was much torture committed against the Jews. What a joke that assumption is. Then you make another assumption that I want us to be like Al-Qaeda. Another silly assumption.

    Have a good night...

    Michael

  38. Whether you approve of them or not, some of the drone attacks have been naked assassinations. Not that the US has shied away in the past from such, think Admiral Yamamoto in WWII.

    But has to wonder if the naked assassination of a US citizen without due process falls in the same category.

  39. I wasn't defending anyone or anything. I think the drone attacks/assassinations are a gray area.

    There is room for debate on this. If water-boarding is torture, then why is it okay to assassinate a US citizen without a trial first to convict them of treason? On the other hand, even though it was stated policy to not use assassination as a weapon of war, we have clearly done so in the past against citizens of an enemy nation.

    No, this is not in defense or support of anyone or any one idea. It is merely thinking out loud (as it were) and wondering where do we draw the line now. What makes us different from those we stand against?

    Congress saw fit to add the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in the early 50s to show that we were different from the Soviets. I'm not sure that our supposed condemnation of water-boarding while using drones to attack our own citizens (traitors or not) draws the same distinction.

    And for the record, I greatly prefer the Pledge before the change.

  40. Excellent choice. Rep. Ryan understands the federal budget process better than any other person in the country. Just what the country needs to reign in the out of control budget.

    CarmineD

  41. "News 3 Las Vegas had the breakung news."

    You missed it Teamster. I told Mr. Pizzo here several days ago Paul Ryan would be the VP. You must have been dreaming...again.

    CarmineD

  42. "Sam, have a great time with your Wife on vacation.

    Keep an eye and ear on the news. Romney will likely announce his VP selection in the next day or so. Look for Paul Ryan to get the nod.

    Nothing out on the taxes....yet.

    CarmineD"

    Reid it and weep Teamster.

    CarmineD

  43. Jim,

    I know you are an 'out of the box' thinker so I don't think you'll allow Bradley's attacks to alter that. These are all very complex questions and it is quite easy for someone to 'brand' you as inconsistent or worse, if you actually consider the real threats we are under instead of just saying we should do as we have always done.

    It's unfortunate that some people never consider the fact that those holding views contrary to theirs may have come to those views with difficulty and reservation and are open to other views. When such people are attacked instead of calmly reasoned with, it only works to lessen the chance to change their minds.

    As Bradley has demonstrated and said, he enjoys being a pain and attacking and doesn't care what anyone thinks of him and his views.

    To each his own...

    Keep thinking outside the box...

    Michael

  44. My post to Sam was on Wednesday Aug 8. I reposted today after the news on Ryan broke.

    He who laughs last....

    CarmineD

  45. boftx:

    I second Mr. Casler. Mr. Chapline is like a bull in a china shop. After the damage, you can't put all the pieces back together. Just slough it off. I do all the time.

    CarmineD

  46. Bradley,

    Your generalization about R's is every bit as foolish and misguided as those that generalize about the D's. These are individuals, not some homogenized entity.

    You and others on the other side actually believe everyone (on the opposite side) thinks the same, they all conspire together and they are all evil. How spectacularly foolish and misguided that view is, no matter what side takes it.

    It also seems that you were willing to break rules and break with convention at times in your career. Oh, my! How can you live with yourself?

    There are many people that are R's that are just like you and many D's too and it is a crying shame. We are NEVER going to have an all R or all D government and as long as the are so many people like you (people who could not be moved one inch, even with a grenade), we can't reach a compromise. You have to be willing to grant that there are good people on the other side who simply disagree with you. If you can't do that, and your posts indicate that you cannot or will not, you are part of the problem and cannot be part of a solution until that changes.

    Michael

  47. It wasn't a commpliment Mr Chapline. It was a criticism. Mature people accept criticism and profit by it. And you...well you figure it out for yourself. If you can't, nobody can for you.

    CarmineD

  48. Teamster:

    After the presidential and VP debates, the fools will be the democrats. Romney and Ryan will prevail. In fact, watch the Youtube video of Ryan taking President Obama to school on the federal budget. It is one of the reasons Romney selected him for VP. No one can hold a candle to Ryan on the federal budget process. Noone. In fact you can get a committee of dems who are supposed experts in the budget, and Ryan will teach them all a lesson in federal budgeting. He is the budget expert par excellence and just what the USA needs now.

    CarmineD

  49. More lies. Romney and Ryan are for these social programs but realize if the CBO is right they have to be reformed and revamped to survive. Obama kicked the can down the road. It's time to stop kicking. Stop golfing. Stop blaming. And start working.

    CarmineD

  50. I can't figure out how people know that Romney's economic plans are better than Obama's. There seem to be a plethora of global economic experts who are working in different occupations here in Vegas. Not only are they able to dissect complex economic details, but they also seem to have the ability to predict all future causational factors which may help or hinder the U.S. economy. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear they just read or heard their ideas from someone else that is sympathetic to who ever they support.