Mitt Romney Budget Cuts Would Have Severe Consequences

Let's be real honest, those 40% pay no or very little FICA taxes as those taxes are reimbursed to them through the EITC. And fuel taxes amount to $100-$200 a year for the poor.

 

I've been all over Romneys statements and I can't find this anywhere. You have a link other than Huff-a-Puff I hope. I think you might just possible be misled by some media outlets that have their own agenda.

 

Ronald0 posted:
"Most voters don't understand the intricasies of the economic system and will believe whatever the TV guy tells them..."

Taxcutter says:
Fortunately for us, that is less true now than any time in our lifetimes, and becomes less true every year. Don't believe me. Believe the Nielsen ratings. TV audiences are way down and highly fragmented these days.

 

Actually there is but we need to go to where former Democrats and Republicans go when they finally become disgusted with the hypocracy of the D&R parties.

I would recommend voters check out Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico. Check out his history as governor and compare it to Romney's.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/front

Like most of those that finally abandon their allegence to either the Democrats or Republicans because of the political hypocracy Gary Johnson has become a Libertarian and is the likely Libertarian Presidential candidate.

The Libertarian Party has never even won a state in a presidential election but they have always fielded a better candidate than either the Republican or Democratic Parties. A past study has actually shown that both Democrats and Republicans have more in common with Libertarians on the issues than they do with their own party. I recommend that both Democrats and Republicans check it out.

http://www.lp.org/

 

A vote for Johnson or the libertarian is a vote for Obama. The goal MUST be to get rid of Obama, that means getting every vote possible for Romney.

 

"Cannot sustain". I've heard those words a million times, but not one Republican authority figure has ever stepped up to explain all that unsustainability. So, I'm hoping you can explain it. Carry on.

 

You believe what the taxpayers can pay to all the government salaries and pensions and benefits is unlimited?

 

wrong, the cuts in Medicaid will affect most seniors who are in nursing homes. Many, if not most seniors in nursing homes rapidly wipe out their assets. Since Medicare does not cover nursing homes (it covers the seniors medical bills) and Social Security only provides about $`12,500 a year income, they are forced onto Medicaid to cover their nursing homes. If Medicaid is cut, many of these nursing homes will no longer be able to care for these seniors and these elderly will have to find other housing.

If those vouchers aren't sufficient to purchase a plan, and there is no guarantee that they will be, then they are worthless to the poor.

The reality is that only about half of retirees have savings or pensions for retirement and the only income they have is SS. About a third of American families have incomes under $40,000 and reality is that they find it very difficult to save when they are existing from paycheck to paycheck.

sorry to burst your bubble. The Democrats only had a technically filibuster proof majority in the Senate for 47 days during the first two years of this administration. The Republicans delayed seating Al Franken for months, then Ted Kennedy died and Mass. sent a Republican to the Senate. As we have seen, without that 60 vote majority, the republicans can stop any legislative action they want. And since on inauguration day in 2009, the Republican leadership met and agreed to oppose every thing Obama proposed to get the economy back on track, it's quite clear where the problem is and it isn't with the Democrats or Obama.

 

Austerity must occur when the economy is in better shape, and I would do so in dramatic fashion. However, when the economy is barely out of a recessionary gap, you need short-run expansionary policies such as tax cuts and increased government spending.

 

Mdicaid is funded jointly by the States and the Federal government but is adminstered by the States which have primary responsibility for it. If the States don't want to "throw grandma" out into the streets then they can ensure that doesn't happen.

Of note Medicaid is a component of Medicare which has dedicated funding from a portion of FICA/Payroll taxes. Currently there is still a reserve fund for both Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid and it has not contributed a single dime to the deficits but both have negative revenue today depending upon the prior reserves to fund benefits.

There is only a limited amount of revenue and reserves and it does not meet future projections for either Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid. I can understand liberals wanting to ensure the future of these programs but to do so either expendatures have to be reduced and/or the FICA/Payroll taxes increased.

So I would like some feedback from liberals. Should expendatures be reduced and if so how and/or should FICA/Payroll taxes be increased and if so by how much?

Remember one thing and that is there is no cap on the FICA/Payroll taxes for Medicare/Medicaid although there is for the Social Security portion.

From my perspective Social Security and Medicare both addressed ligitimate problems but the Democrats in power at the time choose to create government welfare programs as opposed to creating a program that increased the wealth of the American People so that they could provide these same benefits from their own accumulation of wealth. Instead of creating personal wealth to address disability, retirement, death and medical needs the Democrats created programs that depleted individual wealth instead. This to me is a fundamental problem as I believe that increasing the wealth of Americans is far superior to depleting it.

 

We, rather Obama and the Democrats increased government spending HUGELY and as usual it did nothing.

 

Wrong kind of spending. Bush increased spending and look where it got us. Thats not to defend the corporate/ bank sellout that Obama is.... but all the spending this government does is at the expense of the people for the benefit of corporate socialism. Obama, Bush1&2, Reagan, Clinton all the administrations to iclude congress and the senate..they have all been deficit spending like madmen in order to matain or expand the status-quo.

One thing you can bet your hemmoraging bottom dollar on... Romney's plan wont put a ding in the debt or the deficits.. at best ot will pay the interest on outstanding debt... on the backs of the weakest among us with any wealth to our names. The military will get theirs.. the top .05%, corporate and finance will get theirs and we will get ours... oh boy will we get ours.

 

The Republicans in Congress could have blocked any deficit spending since 2010 so why haven't they done that? The Republicans are not demanding an end to deficit spending and have actively supported increases in the national debt. We need to blame both Democrats and Republicans for the deficits and increases in our national debt.

 

Bush and the Republicans restrained spending and where it got us was three years of declining deficits down to $161 billion. Then the Democrats took control of the budget and increased the deficits to $1,600 billion.

Yes spending totally out of control almost 30% higher than where Bush and the Republicans were spending and when even cutting the rate of new spending is proposed by the Republicans the left HOWLS about how cruel they are.

Bush1 agreed to the Democrat tax increases in return for their promise to cut spending. The tax increases came the spending cuts never did and they threw us into a recession. Bush2 see above.

Requested less spending every year than Congress authorized and they refused to pass all of his rescission. Had they accepted his spending proposals the deficits would have been at or below $100 billion his last three years in office.

Fought the measures that did bring about the brief surplus that were due to Gingrich and Kasich's management of the budget.

One thing you can count on is Obama has no intention of cutting spending and bringing fiscal sanity back to government. Romney will.

 

Because there have been no spending bills since 2009, and we see what happened with the one attempt to stop the debt limit increase. What the Republicans have done is passed budgets to get us turned around and headed in that direction. But unless the Democrat controlled Senate does it's jobs it's all a wasted effort.

So vote for Republicans, put them back in charge of the budget.

See what I mean, the actively opposed it and the Democrats turned it into a political issue and still hammer them over it.

 

LOL, evidently the rabid dems think increasing spending by 143% is cutting government to the bone instead of the 167% increase they want.

 

Nope.. the nerve you struck was the one that detects half truth. Germany is a good example of what can be done with responsible Capitalism reined in with sensible socialism. Greece, Ireland, Spain and the like are good examples of what happens when you allow capitalists to use socialism to line their pockets then try to recover the stability of the status -quo by shaking down the people they robbed in the first place. Germany places very high value in education and worker rights, affordable quality healthcare. Germany places high value in green energy research and implementation. Germany is the example we should be following if we follow any in Europe. Even they arent perfect... they did join in with the Euro after all.



Guess what path we are following? This country would be a laughing stock if it didnt have so many weapons and the lustful greed to use them.

 

BS, Germans, unlike Americans, prefer to save money and invest cautiously so did not experience the equity bubble. It was not long ago that Germany cut benefits so if they are a "model" we need to save more, quit living on credit, and scale back benefits.

 

First germany has a social saftey net that more functional and less wasteful than ours. Germany has a much more equitable and logical health care system. Germanies financial well being is due largely to the fact that they did not allow financial lobbies to influence legislation to the point where credit card companies could sell lies and debt to a people whose standard of living was being eroded away. they also did not allow for the possiblity of a housing bubble by keeping legislation intact to discourage predatory lending practices. Germany also suffered in the bundles sercurities scam that the U.S pulled on the world but they got paid off by the U.S taxpayer.. so their losses did extend to the german economy... our housing bubble was a direct cause and effect of our mortgaged economy. Germany also has a much better educated and aware populace because they still value a good education which is the backbone of any thriving economy ( unlike the United States).

In short you are right about what germans do.. you just dont realize why they did it. We cant pick up and act like germany and emulate their present actions until we fix what caused our problems in the first place.

 

Which they are having to cut back on as they can't afford it just as they have cut back on mandate worker benefits that made them so uncompetitive.

 

The (*)(*)(*)(*) rich are more important than the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing poor! The rich are what keep this nation running! The poor have no usefulness whatsoever as an economic unit! I don't care if they are people!

All I care about is your usefulness as a cog in the nation's economy. You are either a net contributor and pay taxes, or you are a net drain and are completely and totally economically useless.

When are you going to drop your stupid economic morality about "people" and start realizing the (*)(*)(*)(*) hand that feeds you are not the poor, but the rich and the rich and upper middle class are the only ones who matter in this nation. The poor need to learn austerity and to fend for themselves.

It is time for economic reality to assert itself. Those with economic usefulness are more important than those who are not and "people" and "morality" have NOTHING to do with it at all.

(*)(*)(*)(*) "people"! You are not a PERSON you are NUMBER, a COG, a GEAR in a giant machine and the bigger gears get the grease because they are more important than the little ones.

You need to quit thinking in terms of people and start counting beans! If a little gear(the poor) breaks off it is no big deal the machine can keep running. If a big gear(rich) breaks, then that's it. The entire machine breaks down.

Stop worrying about "people". "People" is irrelevant in the "big picture".

 

^^^^^^^^ And they say liberals are commies lol^^^^^^