A Vote For Romney / Ryan - A Vote For Austerity

A Vote For Romney / Ryan - A Vote For Austerity

GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney went bold with his running mate selection but in the final analysis may have given the election back to the incumbent. Now I am no fan of President Barack Obama and his constant whining about things that he himself has no problem embracing or theĀ  constant pandering to a base not smart enough to know that they have been played for his own political expediency, but Mitt Romney has sold out to the wishes of a rebel minority within his own party for the sake of that same expediency.

Paul Ryan may be a rising star among Tea Party faithful, but his plan to save America would be done at the expense of a disappearing middle class while still embracing and ignoring the greatest drain upon the American economy – which by the way is not Medicare – but the U.S. Military Complex. Ryan’s Path To Prosperity has carefully avoided angering the wealthy who profit from the many tentacles of Defense Spending. So who gets hammered here?

The Middle Class!

Look I am not saying that there isn’t government waste and fraud to be found in the various programs known as “the safety net,” but that pales in comparison to the wasted millions for defense spending that often results in armament and equipment becoming obsolete long before it is ever implemented or used by the war hawks. And that isn’t even counting the “scrapped programs after Billions have been spent disproving their usefulness.”

But defense spending is what it is and has long been the favorite playground of Republicans. And the only way America can continue to feed that obsession is by taking money away from other programs that effect the lives of everyday average citizens who are forced to subsidize that enormous government waste while sacrificing the little bit they get in return. Average Americans can all but forget about getting their measly mortgage interest write-off or affordable student loans for their children if Paul Ryan’s influence rubs off on a victorious Romney.

Hey – I really don’t give a damn if the rich keep getting richer – but dammit they better pay their fair share of the freight too!

But that won’t happen if this GOP ticket wins the White House.

A vote for Romney / Ryan would be a vote austerity on a scale similar to Europe and we all know how that is working out don’t we?

As much as it pains me to say this, but it really seems to me that we are far better off with a lame-duck Obama and its four years of acrimony and gridlock until the GOP finally figures out that they can’t just can’t dismantle the American Middle Class.

Talk about having no choices in 2012!


Leave a comment
  • What is the "fair share" for the rich? Please give me a percentage you want them to pay of their income-- 60, 70, 80, 90 percent?

    And, are you "rich" earning $250,000 per year?

    What about the subsidies to the entitlement programs, which has more waste in the budget in a year than almost the entire military budget? No cutting necessary?

    You can tax the "rich" to 100% and it will not make a dent in the annual budget of the United States, but "dammit" those rich people will have less, too. Silly, silly thoughts.

    C'mon, you are an Obama-ite. Your ballot is as good as cast. You do care about rich people earning money, because you somehow think some of it is yours. You ain't foolin' nobody.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    LMAO. Rich you go on record as being the first to ever call me an Obama-ite; far from it as I vote more Republican than Democrat. Matter of fact I DID NOT vote for OBAMA then nor would I now. But to answer your question as to what a fair share is - well it really is quite simple - 38% without the loophole write-offs and no 250,000 is NOT rich-. As for subsidies - I am totally against any and all (my Libertarian side). As for Defense vs Entitlement - your are just plain wrong. Defense IN ALL ITS FORMS suck more out of the budget than entitlements. But speaking of entitlements - I am against Illegals getting any since you can't go to Mexico to get some. Fair is Fair right? Fraud must be weeded out but since the IRS can't connect the dots when sending out 2,000 plus refunds to the same address - well lets just say we have a problem Houston.

    My ballot? Will vote local and abstain from Presidential. Neither candidate tickets have earned my vote - and won't!

  • So...38% is your idea of "fair" for taxing a "rich" person. Define rich.

    I could buy you as a Libertarian and if you wanted all across the board to pay something, or if you wanted an excise tax, but 38% of income? Four dollars out of each hundred goes to the federal government in income taxes, then the real add-ons start, with local and state grabbing additional, so in some states like CA, where the state takes 10%, then we are talking half. Add in city and county taxes, and there is no stopping it.

    Libertarians do not have it in their blood to support income taxes and graduated income taxes, because the power to tax is the power to control.

    No Libertarian would promote a bloated entitlement program, which is simply a Ponzi scheme.

    Defense as part of the budget in 2011 is $600 Billion. Social Security is over $700 billion, Medicare over $700 billion, safety net programs nearly $500 billion. Interest on the debt almost $300 billion.

    Speaks for itself.

    The drain is the uninjured person claiming disability and the Lexus driver using Link.

    Abstaining from voting is the easy choice. The hard choice is to take a stand and vote closest to your beliefs. I find it hard to think that a Libertarian would cast for Obama, which is what you will do if you sit out.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Richard, Let's go last first : Abstaining - having to vote for either Obama / Biden or Romney / Ryan just doesn't appeal to me. If you go through my posts you would see that I advocated for the GOP to go Moderate from the onset of the campaign. Now, had Romney picked someone who wouldn't alienate so many I was ready to give him the vote. I am more than standing for my beliefs when it comes to Ryan as I have written quite a few posts opposing his Path to Prosperity. Unfortunately I feel Romney blundered and I will exercise my right in other contests.

    Now your arguments regarding entitlements - you and I aren't as far apart as you may think. Again read all my posts and you will see that I am against gaming the system, but the notion that a legitimate safety net, which we have paid into, should be eliminated - no! Especially with the economy the way it has been - too many people who have played by the rules are one disaster away from financial ruin. Look I don;t think we should be giving anything to those who haven't earned it or paid into it but what about those who have? So you see it isn't so black and white on that subject. And just to be clear here - I have never promoted a bloated entitlement Ponzi scheme if you read my body of work.

    Defense - you are still omitting the tentacles of defense spending - it just isn't one line item and trust me there is plenty of data to substantiate that in the Federal Register.

    Definition of rich? Well, I can start at a number such as $750,000 to be fair. I would have them at 38% while those earning less than that could be held accountable for say 28%. So far as what states and localities do - guess what? Everyone making any amount of money is being forced to pay anyway. Especially here in Illinois.

    But you know what too? I don't believe it is a matter of rich not being taxed as it is about how the rich (particularly Big Business) whittles it down to none. That's what bothers people. No one begrudges those who make money or start businesses. People taking risks should be permitted to keep the majority of their spoils - but even Warren Buffett gave a clear description of the inequities that exist in the tax code today.

    Nobody likes taxes, I give you that but I pay my fair share and always have because I realize some taxation is necessary. Maybe, just maybe, if our politicians from either side of the aisle were held accountable with what they do with it things would be better but as I see it - both parties are empty ideologies.

    Last but not least I am not a Libertarian per se - I am a Moderate Independent that looks for the best candidate. If that offends someones sensibilities - oh well but I am not buying what either party is trying to sell wholesale. I want to see people elected who actually want to debate the issues and find some sort of compromise.

    Too bad Romney backed off from his Moderate core (because he is you know) and caved-in to the extreme right infatuated with Norquist.

    Sorry Richard - Politics is complex and requires something other than what we have been given then or now.

  • Richard, One thing is evident neither you or I will agree and we probably won't agree to disagree but here is my final thought. It goes without saying that the Obama and/or Romney Ticket will appeal to the hard core sides of their respective parties. But I must point out that I, and people like me, are THE Independent vote they will need to win. Now if either candidate offers a convincing argument so be it - but before I will consider the Romney / Ryan ticket I will have to hear that they are willing to match a dollar for dollar reduction between the so-called Safety Net and Defense. Short of that promise - all I can assume is that the Middle Class will again bear the brunt and the pain.

    p.s. - unlike people who have only heard about the snippets of the Path To Prosperity - I actually read it in its entirety. I have also studied the Federal Budget and can tell you that defense spending is not just one line item in the budget - they are in every other department's as well. You simply cannot ignore the "other costs" associated with defense when calculating the drain on American Taxpayers. They say Ryan is a economic policy wonk - so why does he ignore the obvious. Well - military spending is the sacred cow for both political parties isn't it? As always I urge people to be careful what they wish for.

  • I see after two months, you are back.

    I'm not interested in getting into your dispute with Richard, because we know where he stands. And, as I mentioned previously, I don't care about the !%, except to the extent that they can prove that they created jobs in the U.S. So far, the Bain story isn't going in that direction.

    As I see it, Ryan gives Romney a bit of intellectual heft, maybe gets the issue off Romneycare, and clarifies that fiscal policy is an issue.

    But with regard to taxes, Reagan came the closest to a flat tax, but one thing that debate proved in 1986 is that you can't eliminate the deductions for first home mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and state and local income taxes. Now we can probably add health care premiums. If Romney is suggesting any of those, and he implies that he is, it isn't going to work, and certainly will result in a tax hike for the middle class.

    As far as debt, I have said before that after the crash, inflating the money supply doesn't bother me (since that debt isn't going to be repaid) and we are in trouble only if China asks for its money back. Then China's export economy goes into the toilet. Hence, there is no need for austerity. However, if the last mutual fund newsletter I received is correct, if nothing gets done, there will be the "fiscal cliff" where both domestic and military take an automatic hit, as a result of the failure of the Super Committee, so let's see if Richard and crowd are satisfied with that.

  • In reply to jack:

    Yes my friend I am back although I wasn't really gone. It just seemed to me that every bit of political news we were getting was just much of the same old same old. I figured it was a good time to appease the wife and get that Pergola added on to our deck and replace the floor boards with a composite.

    Naturally this news of Ryan being selected for Veep will add substance to the conversation and was a good time to reenter the fray of blogging. Chicago Now keeps tinkering and there are times I just don't want to deal with it; i.e. now we have the option to have our comments enabled via Facebook - haven't decided yet if I want to use that option since I already set up a FB page for the blog already.

    Now for the important stuff - your comments. As usual you have a grasp of the situation and I appreciate your input. And may I add - very well said! I have to tell you though - I have never been called an Obama-ite so that gave me a hell of a laugh you know?

    As I said in my last comment to Richard, until Ryan includes the sacred cow in the cuts he proposes I just can't see this ticket getting enough traction from the Independents, Seniors and Moderates. I could be wrong - but my record of predicting certain political trends has been pretty good thus far and have to stick with my observation as it applies to my vote. Thanks for commenting!

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    With regard to "tinkering," I saved this bit of text:

    I responded to this one on "Drive, She Said" of July 18, 2012, which applies here.

    So, do it at the risk of loss of readership.

    I also see that the date stamp on Chicago Now is all fouled up, but that's a different, and consistent issue out of your control.

  • In reply to jack:

    Gee Jack sorry I didn't reply to this comment. Yeah I think I agree with you about the risk. I read your comment to "Drive - She Said" and I feel she may be right when she said that we may eventually be forced into this.

    Here is wht she didn't say in her post; Jimmy Greenfield originally broached the idea to the bloggers as an opinion poll and in it he said a number of times that he wasn't sure if the Tribune would even go that route and he was just asking. After the majority of bloggers responded on "our blogger only Facebook page" wham bam thank you maam - FB commenting was added to the mix in rapid fire order. I guess I found that disengenuous and was partly a reason I didn't post for awhile. The Tribune is only concerned with the number of "ad clicks" it gets. Of course if you go to the Sun-Times website they have gone way overboard with their pop up ads. Now I understand the rationale and I can also see how Facebook commenting would generate a greater reach - but like I said I already set up a FB follower box and FB page long long ago. As such I am not activating the FB commenting. If anonymous morons want to comment so be it - I don't censor unless it is really really foul or hateful. To date I have had to pull down 1 comment in addition to those bogus ads disquised as comments. Those, by the way - get wiped the second I see them.

    Time Stamp? I am not familiar with that but yes that would either be a Trib Website issue or it could be that your personal computer is set to the incorrect time zone. That is easy to check - just double-click your "time in lower right of your browser to open up your time settings and adjust as necessary.

    Sorry for late response.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    Since we're going in this direction:

    The Tribune itself went to Facebook only. So, no point commenting there.

    I use AdBlock Plus, so I don't see the ads. I was going to say to look at Greenfield's Village where he gave the explanation for publius being several times in the top 20 that he gets a lot of Google referrals for using words such as "Obama" in his headlines, as opposed to people using the right pane. However, I can't since he pulled the regular comments and substituted Facebook ones. Apparently, he is now down to one comment.

    The "time stamp issue" to which I alluded has to do with the Chicago Now server putting up an incorrect legend that "X said y minutes ago." There are two manifestations:

    1. In some cases. like today's CTA Tattler, the reply to Steven Winkler was 4 minutes before the original post. That becomes obvious when the right pane, like yours, logs the posts, in supposedly chronological order. I mentioned to Jack Spatafora, in a similar situation, that he must be clairvoyant.

    2. What teed me off today is that Chicago Now frequently gives the "You are commenting too quickly" screen and refuses to post the comment, even though one hasn't. Hence, I copy the post before clicking "Comment."

    But there is nothing wrong with my computer's system clock.

  • In reply to jack:

    I didn't think there was anything wrong with your system clock but threw it out there. I remember getting a call from my sister-in-law's friend once and she was having all kinds of problems with her computer and updates, etc.. turned out her system clock was correct but her calender was stuck in another year. Will never forget that one.

    Yes, Chicago Now servers have had their problems especially if they have been manipulated by internal updates. Hell half my earlier posts are underlined text for some weird reason. Really don't know what goes on there.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack, where do I stand?

    I do not stand for a graduated income tax. Period.
    I do not stand for an income tax at all. The country got along just fine without one for most of its history.

    I do stand for tax simplification -- an excise tax OR a flat tax (lesser choice).
    I do stand for cutting the budgets of ALL federal (and local and state) departments, including defense.
    I do stand for the elimination of all deductions, including the home mortgage deduction. This will never happen unless the income tax is eliminated, obviously, because taxing is control.
    I do stand for a currency that is more than fiat.
    I do stand for a safety net and for reasoned government services.

    If YOU stand for inflating the money supply, then you will be advocating the (further) destruction of wealth for everybody and for a currency that will have a better use in the WC, applied to our arse ends.

    I am not advocating "austerity", but fiscal sense. To think you can spend and tax a country into prosperity is just plain dangerous.

    Michael, if we follow Jack's line of reasoning regarding inflation, your $750,000 baseline of "rich" is going to apply to the mechanic at Firestone. I wonder if Jack and "his crowd" will be satisfied with that? The mutual fund letter paper will be worth more than the federal notes that will circulate in wheel barrows.

    "Moderate" is an overused word, and in my opinion simply means that real libertarians, conservatives and true Republicans give in to Democrat demands. Where is the chorus advocating "moderation" on President Obama's plans? Crickets.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Thanks for reinforcing that besides being like publius's "well anything Obama says, I'm against, even if I have to divorce myself from reality," which I have pointed out several times on your own blog, as well as his, which I am now boycotting, you are totally divorced from reality in this case. Maybe you are still living in the Nixon years (1970s runaway inflation).

    If interest rates are currently zero, foreign countries are pouring their money into the $US as a safe haven, thereby making the exchange rate higher than it should be, and the only inflation is in stuff where there is a clear supply demand problem (i.e. oil but not gas; food because of the drought), all you are suggesting is a means of assuredly plunging the U.S. in to a Great Depression, and not just the mess the Bush Administration left us with. Then I hope that someone is manufacturing goods and providing services for which you can exchange your hoard of gold.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Richard I can except the majority of what you stand for in regard to taxation because no one likes the current state of the code. However I disagree on the Mortgage Interest Credit. That credit, in my opinion, is an important offset when it comes to someone deciding on ownership and its increased costs vs renting; but again that is based on the current tax code as we know it. No question we need tax reform and I doubt you, I or Jack would disagree there. I do understand what Jack is driving at with today's chaotic financial climate. In the end, though, this is all hypothetical because Congress has avoided addressing the tax code or it's inequities.

    Moderate being over-used? Perhaps but my definition is based on no one caving-in to another. A true moderate would look for a compromise that doesn't overly offend one or the other. Like I said, I see where your positions are at and think if we had the power to produce change could work something out that is agreeable. Unfortunately, that is not what our elected ideologues do otherwise they would have used Bowles-Simpson as a starting point instead of obstructing each other.

    As I stated earlier, if you were to go back and read my body of posts you would see that I do not promote one ideology or the other, I also really don't care where anyone's ideological core is at - I just want people to (a) participate in the process (although that might make me a little hypocritical since I don't plan to vote for either presidential candidate for the 1st time in my life - although I will vote in other contests) and (b) take an objective view as to what politicians are really telling us instead of the smokescreens being lobbed. I believe we get no where as a nation unless we have real dialogue and that is something that has been in short supply. But good politics is supposed to be an exercise in diplomacy and I wish our elected officials would remember that.

    Last point "advocating moderation on Obama's plans" - while others have strongly rejected Obamacare, which by the way was fashioned on Romneycare - I have always said that there are good things about universal care - especially not letting insurance companies deny those with pre-existing conditions insurability. So you see - not everything about Obama's so-called vision is reprehensible to me. Now I don't like his flip-flopping or his pandering either but I suppose there are those in the Republican ranks who do the same.

    What irks me though is that whenever I try to see both sides and/or exercise that independence I am either called an Obama-ite or a renegade Republican. But really I am just what I say I am - an Independent Moderate. (Even if over-used)

    Here's the bottom line - America is a way better place when we the people don't have to embrace one political extreme or the other. Of course that is also considered heresy by those who construct these misguided political agendas, isn't it?

    Something to ponder: Why is it that the OFFICIAL PARTY MISSION STATEMENT'S for both political parties (as stated on their websites) are damn near identical to each other and yet we can't get our elected officials to engage in a proper political discussion on the issues?

    So what are our politics really about? Obviously nothing that we voters are talking about..........

Leave a comment