Your opinion. Not shared.
In a strange way, I am with LDS Liberal here. I support Hatch not
because I think there isn't a good alternative for Hatch, but rather that
of the options available to me as a voter, he is the best candidate. There is a distinction. We ousted Bob Bennett in a "anybody
but Bennett" movement. I do not believe my support should go for that. I am not an "Anybody but " person. Rather, lets send the best
choice we have back to Washington DC. I believe that Senator Hatch
is our best choice and am disappointed that we don't have a better one.
(Yes, I have vetted the other candidates)If I truly believed that
President Obama was the best choice for president, I would vote for him over a
Republican candidate. (Fortunately that is not the case)
Homebrew....No it is not a fact that most banks have paod back the money
with interest... it the opposite.. out of the over 500 banks that recieved
bailout money ONLY 32 have paid the governemnt back according to the NY
times.I love how people make "Facts" out of
"fiction".As far as I know the only auto maker that is doing
"fine" is Ford (which did not accept bailout money the second time).
Here is what really cracks me up with people like Mike Richards.....He complains and moans about how Hatach should not have voted our "Tax
Paying Dollars" for TARP..... That is not what the constitution says...blah
blah blah...What would have happened if TARP did not happen? if in
the end there was a major depression and our financial community colapsed and
thousand upon thousands lost their jobs... Would Mike Richards being singing the
same tune?Sometimes we must do things that we don't neccesarily
like but is important for the stability of the ecomony.
here's some facts,, Tarp was started by Bush. Continued by Obama. Most of
the money givin to the banks has been paid back with intrest, The government
made money on the deal. The Auto industry and hundreds of thousands of jobs were
saved. Now the Auto industries are doing just fine. As far as Hatch is concerned
he ran against Frnk Moss in 1976 saying 18 years was enough for Moss. He was
right then, and I am right now. Hatch has been there too long. He has supervised
the decline of our nation and the piling on of debt for the last 35 years. He is
part of the problem. The only president who didnt pile on more debt was Clinton,
and Hatch opposed him every step of the way. Time to go home Hatch. To
Re: Mike Richards and J Thompson: You're right that, especially in the
crisis our nation is facing, it's better to vote for an imperfect
Republican than a Democrat. But that's not the current issue -- the issue
at the moment is which Republican the state delegates should choose as the
senate candidate. This time, there are better choices than Senator Hatch.
By the way, Steve, great letter! We have some excellent senate candidates.
Hatch is desperate to hang on to power, and tries to convince us that we
can't get along without him.
Some people would pretend that if we vote for Senator Hatch, even though he is
the fourth or fifth best candidate, that we are voting for the wrong man. That
would be true if we only compared him to other Republican candidates, but when
we compare his ideals against the ideals of the Democrats, it is to see that he
is still the best choice.Mr. Hatch, by some of the votes he has
cast, has forever forfeited the right to be my first choice; but, as Mike
Richards pointed out, when the choice comes between voting for a candidate who
has made some errors or voting for a candidate whose party embraces a
woman's "right" to end the life of her unborn baby - for any
reason, without remembering that the Constitution protects our right to life -
the choice is obvious; we vote for the candidate who respects the life of the
unborn.Yes, abortion is the law of the land, but that does not make
it right. That does not make it any more right than President Obama's
demand that the government be allowed to force us to buy insurance. Innocent life wins - every time.
What is the higher crime? Is it better to vote for someone who has cast a few
wrong votes, or is it better to vote for someone whose party calls for abortion
without regard to the rights of the unborn? Is it better to vote
for someone who cast a few wrong votes or is it better to vote for someone whose
party calls for government expansion in all things, as if the Constitution were
just another pieces of paper?Is it better to vote for someone who
mostly tries to do the right thing or is it better to vote for someone who has
chosen a party that promotes everything that would destroy this nation?We vote for the man, but when the party twists arms when votes are needed, do
we ignore the Party? Look at the voting record of Jim Matheson and
compare it to the voting record of Orrin Hatch. Even though they are members of
different parts of Congress, it is easy to see how often both of them marched
lock step with their party. When perfection is not possible, we
compromise and vote for the best man running.
MY point is Mike, and you keep missing it – is quite simple --- If
you don’t like him, don’t support him, and don’t think he is
doing a good job – why on earth do you keep electing him?I do
care about Government, I do expect my Representatives to represent me.I do hold them accountable.And when they don’t, they no longer
have my vote, period.It’s that simple.Your ranting and
then seceding and voting for them anyway is not only hypocritical and ironic,
but shows a lack of integrity to one’s core beliefs and values,
LDS Liberal,Do you care about honesty in government?Do
you care whether elected officials uphold their sacred duties?Do you
realize that the election process allows us to replace "poor
performers".Do you realize that instead of attacking the voters,
you could expend some effort in getting good people elected?
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah9:20 a.m. April 3, 2012Did TARP help or hurt? Does it matter? One of the most sacred
duties that every Senator has is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity".Senator Hatch has forgotten that
primary responsibility. Instead of focusing on the PEOPLE, he has focused on
those who pay for his re-election. Instead of upholding the Constitution, he has
looked at the polls to see where he could find some votes. ============ Question for Mike….So then, why DO
you vote for him each and every time?Follow-on question;Why WILL you
vote for him again once he wins the nomination? Burn me once, shame
on you –Burn me twice, 3, 4, 5, 6 times….shame on me, [times
6].My guess, Orrin Hatch depends on blind lemmings Republicans who
will vote for him no matter what he does and no matter how mad they get.BTW – That’s what really matters.
Atl134With the stimulus, the unemployment will not rise above 8% - BO,
early 2009It is not the responsibility of the federal government or
within its prescribed powers to help STATES retain teachers and first
responders. Whether doing such is a good thing or not does not enter into the
equation. Why should I pay more in federal taxes due to the porkulus because CA
or NY has made unsustainable promises to its public employees?As far
as tax cuts, isn’t the left always SCREAMING for the repeal of the bush
tax cuts? So the purported tax cuts in the porkulus are good but all others are
bad? On a percentage of income basis, the lower tax brackets benefited MUCH
more from the bush tax cuts than did the upper income brackets.MASSIVE govt spending in the 1930s did not end the depression; MASSIVE
government spending in 2009 did not end the recession. Slick willy proposed a
stimulus package in early 1993 – that proposal was wisely rejected –
and the economy improved. Porkuli do not work.
@lost in DCThere is no way at all that stimulus spending, which helped
states retain teachers and first responders, as well as provided needed
infrastructure construction jobs, as well as the fact that half the stimulus was
tax cuts that is part of ANY republican plan to help the economy, delayed the
Want to destroy the economy? Be someone who votes against the bank bailouts and
watch the entire financial sector collapse (it'd be maybe over a decade
before the remaining small banks could pick up that carnage).
Re: Furry1993: I disagree. Among those running against Hatch, there are some
smart, energetic, capable, classy, likeable candidates -- people who really get
it. They understand that we got into this mess because the federal government
has strayed far outside its narrow Constitutional limits, and they have a solid
focus on how to help return our country to greater prosperity and freedom. To
me, that's a lot more important than "seniority." I'm very
hopeful that we can replace Senator Hatch with the right candidate.
This was nothing more than mainstream Republicans taking back what they allowed
to happen in 2010. They didn't want another Lee. However, it would still be
in the common interests of all if Utahns opened both eyes rather than just the
right. They would be voting in their own interests.
As much as I don't like or want Hatch, the best supported candidates
running against him are much, much worse. I'm going to vote for my dog.
TARP was a very bad move, and Hatch was wrong to vote for it. It rescued and
rewarded a lot of people for glaringly wrong decisions. It picked winners and
losers. Without TARP, yes, some banks would have failed, but the market would
have corrected itself and we would have come out healthier on the other side,
and without having wasted hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. Other
banks would have picked up the slack and we would have been fine.Hatch has done some good things, but he's also done some bad ones. I
think maybe it's time to give the newer guys a shot. Hatch talks about
the importance of his seniority, but then he also praises Paul Ryan, who's
fairly new in the House but has accomplished great things. Sometimes the
freshmen, with their new ideas and fresh energy and no baggage, are the ones who
can really get things done.
Did TARP help or hurt? Does it matter? The question is whether
Senator Hatch had any business voting OUR TAX MONEY to bail out any business.
Those tax dollars were not the government's money. Those dollars belonged
to the people to pay for the duties that they people delegated to the
government. The people never delegated the duty to "bail out" any
business to the government.At the very least, TARP represents the
misappropriation of funds.One of the most sacred duties that every
Senator has is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity".Senator Hatch has forgotten that primary
responsibility. Instead of focusing on the PEOPLE, he has focused on those who
pay for his re-election. Instead of upholding the Constitution, he has looked at
the polls to see where he could find some votes. Has Mr.
Hatch's votes promoted freedom and liberty, or has he voted to allow the
government to eavesdrop on our conversations, to "probe" us before we
can get on an airplane, and to allow the government to lock us up without the
RIGHT to consult an attorney and without every going to trial?
The best answer to the problem of sending Hatch or a candidate who is even
farther right-wing is to elect a Democrat.
I’ll bet my bottom dollar, the letter writer is a Republican – and
if nominated [and most likely will be] he will quietly and bitterly re-elect 78
year old Orrin Hatch for a 7th and 42 year stint.Hint; YOU are part
of the problem. YOU have no one else by yourself to blame.
While I oppose Hatch’s renomination, I think your criticism of TARP may be
a little misplaced. TARP DID stabilize the financial markets; and
while there were a large number of banks that failed the vast majority of those
that failed did not receive TARP funds. Of the banks that did receive TARP
funds, they have repaid ALL TARP funds invested in banks with over $13 billion
in profit to the treasury.No, TARP did MUCH more to stabilize the
economy than BO’s porkulus. It was the porkulus and BO’s other
policies that have delayed and weakened the recovery.
I haven't ever read any credible source or economist that claims what this
letter writer did. TARP extended the economic recession? Everyone I've read or seen, folks from both parties, claim that without
TARP a full-blown depression would have followed. So we can either
trust this armchair economist from some rural town in Utah, or actual economists
that know what they're talking about.
Although Hatch voted for the 1st bailout, he did not adminster it. Obama
mishandled the funds giving large portions to corporations favorable to him.
Knowing Solyndra was practically bankrupt Obama gave it huge sums of money. In
turn, Solyndra contributed to Obama's campaign funds.