Las Vegas Sun

July 22, 2014

Currently: 97° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Remember who got us into this mess

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

I wish someone would ask me if I’m better off now than I was four years ago. I could give them the same response they’d get from a guy who went hunting with Dick Cheney: “No, but I’d rather stick with the doctor who got me off the critical list than put my fate back in the hands of the gunman.”

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: 79 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. I would prefer not to have to stay in the hospital the rest of my life,getting worse. We need a new Doctor--Mitt Romney!

  2. Get a new doctor letter writer. Yours is still a Dr. Jeckyl-Mr. Hyde. Romney-Ryan are not Bush-Cheney. In reality, Obama-Biden are [Bush-Cheney], just a different party name. The failed policies, both economic and social, have been the same for the last 12 years. The hope and change was not. It was all political rhetoric. Romney-Ryan is the real deal. It's their time now.
    CarmineD

  3. I wonder if Mitt Romney is better off today than he was four years ago. Since he won't release those tax returns, I guess we'll never know for sure.

  4. Congress, at any time, including right now, could have dealt with the deficits and the debt. The House and Senate could have passed tax increases and or spending cuts and forced former President Bush or President Obama to sign or veto such legislation. They have not done so.

    It might be well for us to remember that we live in a representative democracy with a President, not a king or a dictator. Congress does not do any of the above because powerful interests of all kinds will be disadvantaged if tax increases and spending cuts are passed and they will withhold money for members re-election if they do not get what they want.

    This is the way our government really works now and expecting a President to buck that is asking a great deal.... a great deal more than our last two Presidents have been willing to deliver.

    Michael

  5. Mr. Chapline: Go back to bed it's not 7 yet! In fact go to sleep and we'll wake you on Nov 7 and tell you who won. [Hint it won't be your guy].

    CarmineD

  6. In many ways the country is better off than 4 years ago. That's not too tough since we were about to go over a fiscal cliff. President Obama deserves some credit for backing us away from the cliff. So does former President Bush in his final days as President.

    But we are in a calm before a storm... a very big storm. What we know of President Obama's plan sounds much like the last four years, which was ok for backing us away from the cliff, but appears ill suited to weather the coming storm.

    Mitt Romney's plan is 'undefined' so it is difficult to know how effective it would be against the coming storm.

    I know the 'true believers' on both sides will disagree, but we really do have two what appear to be poor choices this election cycle.

    Michael

  7. I would like to know if Peggy Joseph, the woman who back in October of 2008 thought Barack Obama would pay for her gas and mortgage ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3... ) thinks she is better off now than then. I have little doubt that she feels she is not as well off as she should be (at government expense.)

  8. If Obama's campaign can convince the American people that the net weight of the blame for our economic condition today rests on the shoulders of W Bush, and no reasonable person could have done any better than Obama, then Obama wins this election. This is regardless of Obama's policy failures.

    This means that the most important thing that Romney must do is to convince Americans that the situation today is the net fault of Obama,not Bush. In other words that America is worse off today because of Obama.

    This is a difficult bar for Romney to jump over.Why--because
    it's very difficult to prove that an extreme problem that is generally well accepted does not carry the net blame for a lingering current problem.

    Obama is currently slightly ahead in my opinion,because he has made his case more successfully than Romney.

  9. "A message for the following: Houstonjac, CarmineD,Heretic, and rusty57. Have you seen the polls lately? Your guy is falling way behind."

    There's a reason it's called a Convention bounce. Because what goes up must come down.

    There's only one poll that counts: The one on Nov 6, 2012.

    CarmineD

  10. boftx,
    In addition to old man yelling at chair there is this:
    http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/15_perce...

    There are plenty of not very bright people out there.

  11. Bob,

    If Romney wants to win, he has to level with the American people. It's risky to do, but it's the only way to put the lie to what Obama is successfully selling.

    Obama is saying he can pull us out by the government borrowing and printing more money to be used to hire more government workers. This is not possible or wise given our present financial state.

    Romney needs to admit that we cannot tax cut our way out nor can we spend our way way out. He needs to detail the spending cuts that he will propose and point out that Obama will cut nothing and will in fact spend more and add to the deficits and debt.

    I don't think his campaign or the R's will employ this dangerous but honest and brave strategy .... and therefore, Romney is most likely going to lose.

    What we have right now are two liars, neither of which will admit what really must be done. Romney's at a disadvantage as a 'rich' guy, Obama comes across as a 'nice' guy and he is the one saying everybody can keep what they have and everything is going to be fine.

    I think most Americans know better than to believe what either guy is telling them and many of us want the truth, ugly as it may be. Romney needs to take the risk and go 'all in'. If he doesn't, he most likely loses.

    Michael

  12. Mr. Casler:

    I have one word for you and others worried about the Obama poll bounce and Romney election strategy: Debates.

    CarmineD

  13. Yesterday Rush Limbaugh said Romney is Elmer Fudd.
    Yesterday Romney said he won't take God off our coins.

    Kudos to Limbaugh and Romney for clarifying the issues.

  14. Heretic - "wtplv, you sir are correct. In this election I know what the last four years brought me. I am willing to take a chance with a different dude this go around."

    Be aware of the fact Romney/Ryan want to cut taxes even lower. In 2010 Ryan's plan cut taxes to just 1%. Without revenue to pay for their ever expanding military and defense, who's pocket do you think they will tap? Be aware that if they repeal Obamacare what plan will they replace it with? They have no plan other than to let insurance companies do what they may, and their allegiance to Grover Norquist won't allow them to think of raising taxes to balance the budget or lessen debt.

    If you listen to these Republican candidates, Romney/Ryan, they have nothing to speak of. When asked they have no plans other than generalisms, "repeal this and cut that" without specifics.

  15. Not only win but destroy Obama in the debates.

    And Ryan will do the same to Biden.

    Watch and see.

    Here's my prediction: Romney-Ryan win 318 electoral votes, all the swing states, and 53 percent of the popular vote. Bye bye Obama Biden.

    CarmineD

  16. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal...
    Michael.. Obama wants to print more money so he can hire more government workers? You're living in phantasmagoria. Healthcare costs have gone up to such an extent and the government's exposure to healthcare has increased so dramatically the federal government hasn't been able to add to its workforce since Harry Truman was in the White House. Even though the population of the United States has doubled the federal workforce is still at levels seen in the 1950s.

    Another nonsensical talking point you hear every day is that gas prices have doubled. A few weeks before Obama took office gas was that over $140 a barrel and I was paying close to five dollars a gallon at Cosco for premium. The automobile plant that Ryan talks about built trucks for GM. GM couldn't give trucks away in those days, that's why the plant closed. The great recession cause fuel prices to collapse over $100 a barrel. That's why gas prices have doubled. They were at depressed levels when he took office. Without the recession we probably be paying seven bucks a gallon or more.

    The various stock indices have also doubled. Why??? During the recession the Dow fell from 14,400 to 6,600. It is coming back fro severely depressed levels.

  17. Carmine,

    As I recall, in most elections, unless there is a great moment or a big gaff, debates don't move polls much. Romney is losing at this point. It isn't over yet but he is trailing. As I also recall, Obama has done fine in debates.

    Michael

  18. Romney's going to destroy Obama in the debates? Romney wants to change the tax code to largely eliminate investment income from taxation. That will save him millions of dollars a year and reduce his tax burden to almost 0. That's going to cause problems for him in the debates. Most Americans don't have ANY investment income.

    In addition he spent the entire election cycle blasting Obama care. He came out a couple days ago and said he was going to maintain the most popular provisions of Obama care. He may win but it's going to be close. Obama is a very good speaker and Romney is a stiff as a board when he stands in front of the camera. We'll see.

  19. Vernos gives us the holes in the Romney campaign and most are valid. I wish those holes were not there but I also wish the holes in Obama's campaign were not their either. Obama plans to spend a large amount of money using the government to try to stimulate the economy. Other than taxing the wealthy a little more and cutting military spending some, he has provided precious little as to how he will pay for this spending.

    The truth is that neither Romney and Obama has any idea how they will pay for what they plan to do, other than to hope and maybe pray that the economy picks up enough to cover the costs, make a balanced budget magically possible and miraculously pay down the debt.

    That's why every American should be scared and angry as they enter the voting booth in November.

    Michael

  20. @ mschaffer 9:48 a.m.: In addition to old man yelling at chair there is this:
    http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/15_perce......

    >>Proves the damage done by the Republican fraudsters.

    fraud: noun
    wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain
    a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities: mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds.
    Derivatives: fraudster

  21. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11...
    I wonder shy Sheldon is spending so much BREAD.

  22. Gerry,

    I cannot believe you did not hear Obama and many other D's say recently that over 600,000 government workers have lost their jobs and we need to get those jobs back and add more. It's government at all levels , not just federal. And that takes money...lots of stimulus money ... and that is what Obama will propose if he is re-elected. Where are his proposals to reduce government spending? Just like with Romney, there are no specifics.

    Gas prices are a terrible argument and both parties would be well advised to not use them in a campaign, but we both know that will never happen with either party.... don't we.

    Stock prices? Easy. Demand is there but it is low, so businesses don't expand and they hoard cash... and they will continue until the economy improves or they are offered something that lessens their risk if they invest, grow and hire.

    Michael

  23. Most recessions are caused by lax demand for products and layoffs take place in the private sector. The private sector than rehires the workers when the economy picks up.Various governments normally employ more people during recessions because they have a large pool of quality workers to choose from. This is the only recession that I know of where nearly everyone has gotten a pink slip. I attended UCLA in the 1970s and graduated in 1981. There was a substantial recession going on in those days. I got my degree in economics and wanted a job in the finance industry. I made inquiries with Shearson, PaineWebber, Sutro and a couple of other brokerage firms I can't even remember the names of. None would hire me because of the lousy economic climate. A friend of mine told me that the Santa Monica Police Department was hiring. I needed a job and thought it might be an interesting career. The rest is history. People graduating from college these days can't find work anyplace. This is what is exacerbating the whole unemployment situation. It would be great if federal state and local governments could hire 1 million or so people.. The problem is tax revenues have collapsed and they are spending $1 trillion on medical care. There's no money to hire people. The private sector has trillions of dollars in cash but there refusing the higher because they're maintaining their margins with the current level of employment. Corporate profits have been skyhigh the last few years. The bottom line is were going to have higher than trend unemployment for decades.

  24. "Just like with Romney, there are no specifics."

    Actually, that's not true. It's hilariously false.

    Here's the FY2013 budget proposal, as submitted by the President:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Ove...

    You can drill down into every single department and read overviews and specific plans for each.

    Not specific enough?

    Read the supplementals:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Sup...

    The Object Class Analysis, Tax Expenditures Spreadsheet, long-range and historical assumptions and the Public Budget Database, all out there for you to peruse. The TES is especially dense and detailed

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/...

    I mean, if you want to be lazy and claim there's no specifics, that's one thing. You can likewise shift the goalposts and say the budget didn't pass, and that's another. Of course, that's not entirely true either. The specifics of Obama's budget were never brought to the floor of the Senate. Republicans offered up the president's budget without any of the actual policy language attached, so none of the specifics were actually up for a vote. That's essentially why that act of political theatre got no votes.

    But to claim there are no specifics is just a complete lie.

  25. I remember who got us into this mess and who has profited from it. It's the same Republicans who now promise to make it even worse for us and much more profitable for themselves.

    The Deafness Before the Storm
    By KURT EICHENWALD
    Published: September 10, 2012
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinio...

  26. @ksand99

    You said "But to claim there are no specifics is just a complete lie."

    Did you mean to use the word "incorrect" instead of "lie". I do not recall ever noting that the gentleman you were addressing ever "lies".

  27. Bob Jack: No. "Incorrect" implies ignorance of fact. Are you saying Mike's ignorant? Mike's aware Obama's FY2013 budget was out there. Why, then, did he claim there were no specifics when there clearly were?

    Antigov: Don't know if you saw this, but you'd enjoy it, given your comment:

    "Vote Romney! He'll repeal Obamacare, the whole thing, but he'll keep some parts, like preexisting conditions, but actually he won't, he'll keep it but not in the law."

    "He likes Roe v Wade, but is pro-life, but he won't pass a law against abortion, but he supports laws against abortion, but not if it's rape, but only if it's not secretly not rape. And he'll nominate pro-life judges, but he won't ask judges if they're pro-life before nominating them."

    "Also he'll cut taxes on rich people (sorry, "job creators") and raise taxes by eliminating loopholes, but not loopholes on "job creators", but also not loopholes on poor people or the middle class, and not loopholes on corporations (who are people (actually let me clarify, they're not people (except for purposes of campaign contributions))). He's not going to get into details because if he did his opponents would just use them to attack him."

    "He's in favor of a strong dollar, so he'll stop China from manipulating the currency to maintain a strong dollar, which is causing a big debt, which he'll make smaller by cutting taxes and cutting spending, except on military, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare which he'll spend more on. He's against cutting Medicaire, because that's what Obama is doing and he'll repeal Obama cutting Medicare, but he'll cut Medicare (sorry, "entitlement reform"), but not Obama's cutting Medicare different cutting Medicare. And the older generation is running up the deficit at the expense of younger people, which he'll fix by cutting benefits for younger people (it's not cutting Medicare, it's just having Medicare give out less money than before). And he's in favor of the individual mandate, which is why he'll repeal it once in office. And he didn't want to bail out GM, because he secretly did want to bail out GM. But three things he'll NEVER DO are "apologize for America", let cancer patients smoke weed, and release his tax returns. Vote Romney!"

    http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comment...

  28. Michael:

    When you look at the demographics,the number of people on the federal dole and the perspective that Bush was to blame for a deep and insurmountable crisis, that not even Jesus could overcome in four years, you have to have a perfect campaign strategy, and work it to the max.Plus an overpowering debate performance to beat the "annointed one".
    Bob

  29. Kevin,

    When Obama or Romney tells us in a televised appearance open to reporters questions, exactly what programs within what departments each will cut and by how much money, come back and make your claim about specifics.

    Both Obama's budget and Romney's plan offer some information but few read those documents, as you well know. We are in the financial position we are in, largely because politicians never 'publicly' commit to 'specific' spending cuts because to do so invites criticism. Then what they promised in a written document is eviscerated and forgotten. That's how it works in DC, as you also know.

    Both men hide behind written documents and only make generalized statements in public. The media would rather talk about nonsense than try to pin either one of these guys down about the what, when, where and who, concerning spending cuts.

    I would not last one day as a reporter because I would make these guys look like fools by asking specific questions about just how they are going to reduce spending.

    Go ahead and defend Obama but the truth is that if either man wasn't deathly afraid of talking about detailed cuts both know would be highly unpopular and are unlikely to be realized, we'd get true 'specifics' that came right out of their mouths, and not in a hundred page document that few will read.

    Michael

  30. PS

    Bring able to twist the arms of the polling agencies as Axelrod and the feds did Gallup also helps.Romney's campaign needs some juice. Time is running out.On the other hand if Obama wins, time is running out on America!

  31. Bob,

    Here's the problem. Most Americans that bother to use their brain, already know Bush spent and didn't tax. They know that people on government assistance has increased hugely under Obama because he's spend and not taxed. None of it affects Americans in a personal way because we continue to spend, not cut anything and not tax.

    SOMEBODY needs to not only say it can't continue (already said) but needs to also show how much would really need to be cut or how much taxes would need to increase... just to be able to pay for what we spend today. Then that person heed to present a plan that contained spending cuts (specific) and tax increases (specific) needed to address the crisis. Americans would either embrace it and Obama would be crushed or reject it and Romney would be crushed.

    If Romney did that and was crushed, Americans would deserve what we get.

    Michael

  32. "When Obama or Romney tells us in a televised appearance open to reporters questions, exactly what programs within what departments each will cut and by how much money, come back and make your claim about specifics."

    And THERE'S the goalpost being moved. Actually, more like ripped up and placed a mile away.

    Let's recap, you wrote:

    "Where are his proposals to reduce government spending? Just like with Romney, there are no specifics."

    Not only did I link to a TON of specifics, but even to the item-by-item spending. You asked for proposals, I delivered.

    Now you're whining that Obama's not on the teevee detailing each and every program and cut? That's a new level of ridiculous, even for you. More proof that negative nannies will never be satisfied. Answer the question and they move the goal post, again and again.

    Everything out there to be seen. What's stopping reporters from asking the President questions? His press secretary is available for questions in the daily press briefing.

    I imagine that's not enough for you. Next you'll be demanding an in-person sitdown with Jay Carney, right? What a joke.

    You wanted details, you got them. Stop whining and start telling the truth about who's supplying the honest answers and the details.

  33. Meanwhile Paul Ryan's so confident that he's...

    Begging for his old job back!

    That's right... Paul Ryan's burning through money, airing TV ads begging Wisconsin residents to keep his back-up plan available:

    "Contracts formalized Tuesday with at least one Milwaukee television station show that Ryan's congressional ads will start airing Wednesday morning and go initially for two weeks. "
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...

    Not exactly confident in his prospects to be the veep, is he?

  34. "Are we better off today than we were 4 years ago".

    Let's look at where we are today,American ground forces are out of Irag,all troops to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014. 4.5 million new jobs added,Gen Motors rebounding,along with Chrysler motor corp from almost certain bankruptcy at that time. Osama Bin Laden dead,Mammar Gaddafi killed by his own people and libya liberated, no U.S.troops needed for this.Drone strikes being used to kill many terrorists and militants.Stock market alive and back to pre- 2007- levels,banks seem to be back on solid ground.All things considered I would say we are better off today than we were 4 years ago.

  35. Carmine, be careful on what you predict on this election.You may end up eating crow.

  36. @ksand99

    "To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally."

    Ignorance of facts has nothing to do with it.You know that!

  37. "In the Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings volume,
    the Administration details the 210 cuts, consolidations,
    and savings measures that are proposed in the 2013
    Budget. These proposals total more than $24 billion
    in 2013, and $520 billion through 2022." - 2013 Proposed Budget, "Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings" ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/... )

    $500B in reductions through 2022, when the debt is expected to grow to $19.5T in the same budget proposal's projections. That is a whopping .25% reduction over what it would have been. There just isn't a hell of lot of difference between $19.5T and $20T when it comes down to it.

    The smallest deficit projected is in 2018 at about $500B, then it starts ballooning again to almost $1T in 2022.

    And don't forget, this comes from a budget proposal that wasn't even accepted by Democrats, let alone Republicans!

  38. "The Budget proposes to eliminate the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS') lower-priority International Labor Comparisons Program, which provides international comparisons of employment, compensation, productivity, and price data. Savings associated with this cut would be used to help finance other higher-priority needs across BLS." - from the same document cited above.

    You gotta love this one. It is a $2M cut. But the bottom line is we are starting to suck so hard when compared to the rest of the world that the administration can't stand hearing about it any more.

  39. Kevin,

    You asked the question: 'What's stopping reporters from asking the President questions?' What's your answer?

    If we agree that people don't read budgets and reporters don't ask questions about specifics, which you just confirmed, then how are voters going to get specifics to use in making a decision? Answer: directly from the candidate himself.

    You choose to ignore the fact that I am not just criticizing Obama here. Romney provides few details in his appearances as well. Neither of these guys wants the voters to be able to make an informed decision.

    If anyone looks honestly at the budget projections under the proposed Romney or Obama budget, it is clear to see that few details are verbally spoken about and with what there is, both plans project budget deficits for years to come and the debt just rising and rising. If you want to argue that Obama has a great plan with great details, go ahead, but that doesn't make it true. Reality will eventually rip the blinders you wear right off your face, regardless of which guy wins the White House. The ONLY real difference is likely to be that you'll make excuses if it happens under Obama. I'll make no excuses, no matter who is in power when our economy implodes.

    Neither of these guys has a good plan and neither is willing to talk about specific cuts. Obama has earned credit for calling for at least some tax increases but that's about where the credit ends.

    Michael

  40. Jim,

    Most of the cuts generally described in both the Obama budget and the Romney plan are either reductions in the rate of growth (not real cuts), cuts where the money 'saved' will end up spent somewhere else or so small compared to overall spending, the deficit and the debt to be rendered meaningless.

    Our government is not serious about cutting spending and neither is Romney or Obama. Obama supporters always think I am trying to get them to switch their vote, which is incorrect. I just think we all need to start really criticizing our government, our party and these non serious (fiscally) speaking people in office and running for office.

    Michael

  41. Bob, go back and read what I wrote. Calling someone incorrect is akin to saying they're ignorant of the facts. Mike knew about the Obama budget, he's mentioned it before. So why, then, did he claim there were no specifics? That's a lie, plain and simple.

    Then there's Jim. Jim, who will be voting for Paul Ryan in November, whose budget increases total debt to 24 trillion in the next 10 years. Good luck with that, Jim!

    Jim also has trouble reading: "And don't forget, this comes from a budget proposal that wasn't even accepted by Democrats, let alone Republicans!"

    That was debunked, Jim. I debunked it several hours ago. "The specifics of Obama's budget were never brought to the floor of the Senate. Republicans offered up the president's budget without any of the actual policy language attached, so none of the specifics were actually up for a vote. That's essentially why that act of political theatre got" zero votes.

    So congrats on falling for GOP theater tricks, Jim.

    Meanwhile, I love how you can detail how Obama's budget influences the deficit and debt in real numbers. Why is that, Jim? Oh, that's right... because all the pesky DETAILS of said budget were confirmed by the CBO. Thanks for the assist in debunking Mike!

    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...

    Finally we have Mike, who just keeps moving the goalposts. First goalpost: Mike claimed there were no specifics, which was just a laughable lie, and easily debunked.

    With that talking point out of the way, the goalposts move again: Mike won't be satisfied until Obama has held a 48-hour press conference to detail every single budget item in the FY2013 budget.

    If one were so inclined, one could read the CBO analysis of the President's FY2013 budget, with all the gritty details. But Mike thinks that's too much work!

    Then he claims impartiality, as if that explains the constantly moving goalposts! "I'm not just criticizing Obama!" NO ONE CARES. You made a blatantly false statement about easily found details of Obama's proposals. Not only can you look at the full line-by-line proposal, but there are handy per-agency PDFs that you could read if you were so inclined. There's a CBO analysis you could read. But you didn't. Instead, you just CHOOSE to ignore the available facts and lie to fellow commenters.

    What Mike cannot argue is that the proposals put forth by the Obama administration are FAR more detailed than any platitude released by the Romney campaign. Interested parties have tried to analyze the Romney plan and have FAILED because the Romney "plan" is empty rhetoric.

    Can't blame that on the media, Mike.

  42. Sorry Kevin, my beloved NOTA is still alive it seems. The only other possible choice would have been Gary Johnson.

    The last time the Congress (both houses) voted on a proposed budget by Obama it was a unanimous rejection. That means that not even a single Democrat would support it. That sounds like more than just Republican tricks.

    Besides, doesn't Harry have a lot to say about what comes to the Senate floor? How many House bills are sitting in his (hopefully desk) drawers waiting for action?

    It's really not much of a wonder that people don't read the budget proposals from the Whitehouse, there is just so much pure propaganda (or just plain manure) to wade through before getting to any numbers. And even when you do, they are arranged in such a manner that it is difficult to get a real feel for what is being done.

    Bottom line is that things are their rosiest (meaning there is the least amount of fecal matter being produced) in 2017 - 1018, after that the production dramatically increases again and hits the rotary oscillator.

  43. "The last time the Congress (both houses) voted on a proposed budget by Obama it was a unanimous rejection. That means that not even a single Democrat would support it. That sounds like more than just Republican tricks."

    Hmm, someone continues having problems reading.

    "The most obvious political vote of the session was a 0-99 roll call on President Barack Obama's budget blueprint -- which was offered by Republicans. While that tally is sure to become fodder for campaign ads, Democrats dismissed it as a political stunt since there was no real policy language attached to the Obama budget."

    "In a move to embarrass the president, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions decided to offer a Democratic budget of his own: Obama's fiscal 2013 blueprint."

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/051...

    So, yet again, for the gullible individuals, let's be clear: Obama's budget, the actual policies, weren't voted upon on the Senate floor.

    I'd personally be embarrassed if I were the one fooled by Jeff Sessions, but I can't speak for both of us, Jim.

    Again, you can criticize people for being lazy and not reading the proposals, but denying their existence altogether is dishonest, and claiming they don't exist when you've criticized them in the past is more than just dishonest. It's a lie.

    So why is it that CBO can score Obama's FY2013 budget, but even 3rd party friendlies to the GOP can't do the math on Romney's "proposals?"

    Why can't anyone answer that question?

    Once upon a time, you were advertising yourself as a PUMA Clintonista who voted for McCain. Now you're voting NOTA? Forgive me if I say: I really don't believe you.

  44. Kevin,

    I think many people do care that the Obama and Romney economic plans are both very poor and mostly fantasy.

    As I said before, both do little to reduce deficit spending and both add tremendously to the debt.

    I understand you will vote for Obama and his plan and I am actually sorry he doesn't have a better plan since he's likely to be re-elected.

    I hope we are in contact a couple of years from now. I actually hope you are right and I have to eat crow. If not, any satisfaction I might gain from you having to eat crow will be overwhelmed by the sad situation we will both find ourselves and our country in.

    Michael

  45. Kevin,

    Remove the parties, the candidates, the requirement to pick one or the other candidate and just leave two proposals to financially manage the country going forward.

    One proposal is more detailed than the other and the one that can be scored clearly shows deficits continuing for a long time and the debt spiraling to over 22 trillion dollars over the coming years.

    The other proposal is too vague to properly score.

    Can you agree that one proposal is weak due to lack of specificity and the other is weak due to the continued deficit spending and increasing debt over many years?

    If your answer is no, as I suspect it is, please explain why you think that Obama's budget is a good financial plan going forward.... not better than Romney's plan... just just a good plan on its own merits?

    Michael

  46. Kevin,

    I never said I voted for McCain, I voted NOTA in 2008. I was going to vote McCain after Hillary lost the nomination, but then Palin was put on the ticket with McCain and I immediately changed my mind to NOTA, and I will vote the same this time if NOTA is still on the ballot.

    Go back and search my posts for any that say otherwise.

    President Obama has been a continuation of Bush 43 in too many ways for me to support his bid for a second term. Romney gives us little reason to think he would be much different.

    Just read the current Sun editorial. It has several quotes from Obama that show him talking a good talk. But those very quotes disavow previous comments he has made, one dating back to when he first took office. And Obama almost bent over backwards to get away from the "you didn't build that" remark in his speech the other night.

    Why should we believe him anymore than Romney?

    However much of this mess can be laid on Bush, Obama deserves his share of the credit for ineffective policies that have allowed it to continue.

  47. monkman,

    You may have hockey, but so do we and we have more hockey champions. Beyond that, you do NOT have real football. :)

    Joking aside, medical coverage for those who are productive members of society to the *best of their ability* (which includes those who through accident of birth or other circumstances beyond control are incapable of doing anything at all) is a reasonable debating point. It is the idea of providing the same for those who wish to be parasites that turns the stomach of most Americans.

  48. monkman,

    One more thing, thanks to "BBQ Pitmasters" we now know that Canada doesn't know how to BBQ, either. :)

  49. "Remove the parties, the candidates, the requirement to pick one or the other candidate and just leave two proposals to financially manage the country going forward."

    No. Context matters, and this choice doesn't exist in a vacuum. Nor is this a choice strictly about the economic proposals, no matter how hard Romney wants it to be.

    "One proposal is more detailed than the other and the one that can be scored clearly shows deficits continuing for a long time and the debt spiraling to over 22 trillion dollars over the coming years."

    Oh, now you agree Obama's plan is detailed. Why couldn't you have admitted your mistake this morning?

    "Can you agree that one proposal is weak due to lack of specificity and the other is weak due to the continued deficit spending and increasing debt over many years?"

    No, I don't agree. I don't buy into the GOP debt panic narrative, nor your shilling of the idea.

    Economic growth is far more important in the short-term than our debt obligations, which we can and have met easily. After all, the reason our credit rating was downgraded was because the GOP caucus in the House wanted to play chicken with the debt ceiling, not our ability to repay the debt.

    You've obviously fallen for the debt panic narrative... hook, line and sinker, as have most in your party. You should take a step back and admit the entire narrative is less about genuine concern for the debt or our ability to repay and more about obstructing Obama's agenda.

    Given the methodology of Romney's corporate raider past and his propensity to thrust companies deep into debt, he simply has no credibility on the subject.

    For months now, members of his own party have called on Romney to be more open... about his tax returns, his personal history, and yes... about his economic plans. He's promised the world yet delivered nothing but vague platitudes while his running mate runs his mouth into gaffe after gaffe, a marathon of distortions and lies.

    Meanwhile, we have other things to consider. Romney's hawkish and irresponsible sabre-rattling about Iran and Russia are exactly what the world DOESN'T need right now.

    And no, I want a President who respects a woman's right to choose, who thinks GLBT Americans deserve equal rights, who won't stand for efforts to restrict our voting rights, who doesn't want to voucherize Medicare or euthanize Medicaid and who thinks regulations on financial institutions are necessary.

    Must be hard to breathe in your vacuum.

  50. "I never said I voted for McCain, I voted NOTA in 2008. I was going to vote McCain after Hillary lost the nomination, but then Palin was put on the ticket with McCain and I immediately changed my mind to NOTA, and I will vote the same this time if NOTA is still on the ballot."

    Yup. Sure you did. How convenient, Jim.

    In other words, cede all responsibility for the direction the nation is headed in, while sniping and whining from the backseat.

    After all, is that what you're doing? Isn't it just as bad as those who are not involved in voting at all? You willingly throw that influence away and then come here and complain about Obama's budget?

    Someone who supposedly wanted to vote for Hillary, then McCain, then Sharron Angle?

    Not buying what you're selling, Jim.

  51. Kevin,

    I am not ceding anything. I am making a solid statement with a vote that clearly expresses how I feel. With any luck, this latest round of BS will push someone to put some teeth in NOTA and have it force a new election if it wins, at least for any office other than President.

    And you have forgotten my voting strategy for the Senate race, it seems. I'll let you go back and find it. I'm pretty sure there are others who remember it well and the reason behind it. (Hint: I would greatly prefer to see Schumer as Senate Majority leader.)

  52. Mr. Pizzo, On the Wenesday you went on vacation I posted to you to watch the news that Romney would select Ryan in the next few days as his VP. What did he do on that Friday?

    CarmineD

  53. Mr. Teamster and letter writer:

    Let me be the first to tell you. TARP was Oct 3, 2008. The first check to GM and Chrysler from the Feds was done by Bush on Dec 12, 2008 for $ 17.5 B. On March 16, 2008, Fed intervened to halt collapse of the "too big to fail" financial institutions. On Oct 3, 2008, FDIC increased deposit insurance to $250,000 from $100,000. On Sept 19, 2008, the US Treasury announced guarantee of money-market funds. "Who saved the US financial system?" All these and more started on Bush's watch.

    And the above is the reason Obama called Bush unpatriotic for the huge run up of debt. And promised if elected to cut the deficit in half on his watch. What did he really do? Raise it by over one third in less than 4 years, $5 TRILLION. Same old tax and spend. Just new rhetoric. And he and you believe it.

    CarmineD

  54. Carmine,"On the wednesday you went on vacation I posted to you to watch the news that Romney would select Ryan in the next few days as his VP. What did he do on that friday?"

    To honest with you I did not watch any news while I was on vacation,so I can't say.

  55. Mr. Pizzo:

    Hopefully you know that Ryan was his choice and Romney announced it on Friday as I correctly predicted.

    CarmineD

  56. Carmine, so what's your point,I'm not interested in either Romney Or Ryan, as I have already decided to vote for the re-election of Pres. Obama.Just about everyone had a indication that Romney would pick Ryan,no big secret.

  57. "Just about everyone had a indication that Romney would pick Ryan,no big secret."

    Really? I didn't know that. There were about a dozen names beside Ryan bandied about all of whom spoke at GOP Convention. I didn't realize you knew it was Ryan all along or I would not have bothered to post to you. No sense telling you something you already know.

    BTW, that must be the reason that the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial on Thursday, [after I posted to you on Wednesday], that Romney SHOULD select Ryan. But you probably knew that too already.

    PS: Who's predicting Romney-Ryan NOW over Obama-Biden now, like me. I want to make sure you give me the credit I deserve on Nov 7 after it happens.

    CarmineD

  58. Carmine, "I didn't realize you knew all along or I would not have bothered to post you".

    It was on the news at various times that Ryan was a top choice for Romney to pick.Your wise cracks tell us who you really are.I'm not fooled by you.

    I'm not like you,If Mitt Romney wins the election(which he won"t).I will not be saying I told you so,but I do expect you to say that to all of us commenters,more than once.

  59. "Carmine, be careful on what you predict on this election.You may end up eating crow."

    These are your words Mr. Pizzo, not mine. And I'm going to ensure that you enjoy eating them on Nov 7.

    CarmineD

  60. Let's recap for your benefit Mr. Pizzo. I didn't only say Romney-Ryan will win on Nov 6. I gave the details for the win with 3 months from the election. And I stand on those then and now. 318 electoral votes. All the swing states. 53 percent of the popular vote. And I don't care how much the polls say Obama is ahead right up to the election time. This is what the only poll that matters will say.

    CarmineD

  61. Carmine,I am not vindictive,I made no predictions as you do daily.I do expect you to remind me and everyone else of your predictions,if you were to got lucky.When Pres. Obama wins re- election I will not respond with any negative I told you so, amen.

  62. "Carmine,I am not vindictive,I made no predictions as you do daily"

    Yes, I do. Proud of them an stand by them. That's not vindicative, your word, not mine. Those are facts.

    CarmineD

  63. Teamster:

    I told you many months ago that the path to reelection for Obama was filled with land mines and just one would do him in. Well this may be the one. And there can be more before the election. And you can take that MSNBC report and put it where the sun don't shine. Because it will never see the light of day.

    CarmineD

  64. Carmine,"And I'm going to ensure that you enjoy eating them your words not mine". That's vindictive.

  65. No sir. It's a response in kind to you for your statement that I will have to. Turn about is fair play in politics Mr. Pizzo. Get use to it. Or trust me, you won't survive the results of the Nov 6, 2012 elections. Which I will be sure to remind you of last as you did me first.

    CarmineD

  66. Carmine,I will survive Nov.6th,2012 better than you.The reason is I will accept who ever is elected president,and move on with things,you won't.

  67. Nay, nay Mr. Pizzo. Recall, you're a republican turned democrat just recently. I'm an Independent all my adult life. And I'm long in tooth. I retired as a career civil servant with 33 years who served 6 presidents of both parties in the EOP [Executive Office of the President]. I proved I AM a survivor. You, sir? Well we'll see. Time will tell. And your time is running out.

    CarmineD

  68. Carmine, "Nay nay Nr. Pizzo,you're a republican turned democrat just recently.I'm a independent all my adult life and I'm long on tooth. I served 6 presidents of both parties,I proved I am a survivor,You,sir? Well we'll see.time will tell,and time is running out.

    First, you do not have to remind all of us commenters at least once a week that you worked for 6 presidents (from a second level of management) ,we got it two years ago when you first started boasting.

    Second, I am a registered republican,who is voting democrat for the first time.I have stated this many times in past posts.You claim over and over that you are a Independent,yet over the past 2 years you speak of nothing but how bad the democrats are and how good the republicans are, I don't see anything Independent about you.

    Third, your bragging and boasting will get you nothing,you seem to be a I,I,me, me, person,filled with a form of contempt for anyone who does not agree with you.It might be time to take a good look at yourself in the mirror.

    Fourth, I am at peace with myself,always have been.I made it a long time ago, without any help from anyone.

  69. "First, you do not have to remind all of us commenters at least once a week that you worked for 6 presidents (from a second level of management) ,we got it two years ago when you first started boasting."

    Really. It appears you were most interested just last week to know where and how close I worked with the 6 presidents in my career. With a series of posts filled with your questions to find out. If you didn't want to know, why did you ask. If you didn't ask, I wouldn't tell.

    It's not called boasting when you answer questions directly asked about your career. It's called providing the answers to the questions asked.

    CarmineD

  70. "Third, your bragging and boasting will get you nothing,you seem to be a I,I,me, me, person,filled with a form of contempt for anyone who does not agree with you.It might be time to take a good look at yourself in the mirror."

    The hardest thing for people to do who like to judge/condemn others in public forums, is follow their own advice. How's that working out for you?

    CarmineD

  71. Carmine, Look in the mirror,how's that working for you.

  72. Mr. Pizzo:

    If I had contempt for people with differing opinions, as you suggest, how is it that I served 6 presidents of both parties? Ever think of that? Or don't you think?

    CarmineD

  73. "Carmine, Look in the mirror,how's that working for you."

    Get better every day.

    CarmineD

  74. Carmine,They say people don't see themselves,this applies to you.

    I think about it everytime you have to remind everyone that you worked for 6 presidents.So what does that make you?Get over it.

  75. Mr. Pizzo:

    What sticks in your craw more: The fact I talk about my past government career of 33 years SERVING 6 presidents, or the fact I had it. Or both.

    It's not boasting when it's the truth.

    CarmineD

  76. PS:

    Don't worry about what others think about me talking here about my EOP career. Worry about you and what you think. You appear to be the only one asking and interested. Right?

    CarmineD

  77. Carmine,It's about you constantly reminding me and others about your working with 6 presidents.Once is enough.

  78. Don't ask, I won't tell. You speak for yourself. Not others. Simple as that.

    CarmineD

  79. Kevin, you responded to the question "Where are his proposals to reduce government spending? Just like with Romney, there are no specifics." with your reply "Not only did I link to a TON of specifics, but even to the item-by-item spending. You asked for proposals, I delivered."

    But what you linked to was Obama's 2013 budget proposal, which would INCREASE government spending from 3.603 trillion dollars per year to 3.717 trillion dollars per year. (3.603 was 2011 actual, we don't have actual for 2012, but the proposed was 3.647 so 3.717 is still an INCREASE)

    Yes, it details cuts to specific programs, but includes increase in others and has a final net result of INCREASING government spending.

    Am I missing something or did you link to something showing an Obama plan to REDUCE government spending...or just the budget which shows a plan to INCREASE government spending?

    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...