Comments about ‘Letter: A vote for Romney-Ryan is a vote for change’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Sept. 10 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

OK, Mr Kelly,

I still cant see a difference between what Romney is proposing and what Bush actually did. And no one on the right seems to disagree with me.

Romney's main platform points look to be

More tax cuts
more military spending
less regulation
repeal Obamacare

Your letter states that we have an "opportunity to turn things around"
I would say that we are returning to the policies of GW Bush.

Can anyone make an argument that Romney's plan is different?

embarrassed Utahn!
Salt Lake City, UT

Obama has cleaned up fast enough! Put the party back in charge that caused the messes in the first place! Does this make sense? In Utah, it makes complete sense. Most people here still rate Bush highly when his administration caused most of the major problems we now face. In my opinion Romney would be even more disastrous! Vote Obama...wait never mind, we're in Utah. I should say "Please be respectful of the will of the people and enjoy the next 4 years like I will!"

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

The Romney/Ryan budget gives hefty tax breaks to the wealthiest American while raising taxes on the middle class and slashing services for the elderly.

Bush's tax cuts did not improve the economy, they just ballooned the deficit.

Let's not re-embrace Republican strategies that have already been proven to be bad for the nation.

Esquire
Springville, UT

Romney - Ryan is a vote to go backwards to the Bush years. The only change involved is that it would be worse. They are a total void of ideas. Even on the Sunday talk shows they both admitted that they didn't know, telling me that either they are clueless, or they have ideas that the American people would not want. It has to be one or the other.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Its amusing to observe liberals constantly chanting, “its Bush’s fault, its Bush’s fault” incessantly while they clap their hand over their ears so they don’t have to listen to facts about Sub-prime mortgages given by government mandate to banks for people who had no ability or intention of servicing heir loans was actually started during the Clinton era that are the real cause of our economic problems. This meddling by the federal government caused a huge artificial demand for housing and the supply shortages caused home values to skyrocket, at least until banks found themselves holding worthless toxic assets in billions of subserviced loans. The bubble burst (as it always does) and the value of your home has not stopped falling yet and liberals pointed their fingers at everyone else (as they always do). Then there was the UAW pension funds that GM and Chrysler had no way of paying hence the bailouts with borrowed taxpayer money, effectively taxing people who have not even been born yet!

Esquire
Springville, UT

@ Mountanman, Bush had eight years to clean things up. And at the end of those eight years, the economy collapsed. When will you guys take responsibility for your actions rather than blame someone else for stuff that happened under your watch. Since 1980, the GOP has controlled the White House 20 out of those 32 years, and a lot of that with a GOP controlled Congress. Take responsibility. Don't be like Mitt Romney who a mere eight days, yes eight days, after Obama took the oath of office, attacked Obama because the mess that the GOP left him. It took 12 years and a world war to pull us out of the depression, and yet the GOP is mad because Obama could not turn around the entire world wide economy in eight days. Subprime mortgages were not the issue, it was the way Wall Street packaged them into higher yielding tranches. It was not pensions that did in the automakers. It was a mediocre product followed by the economic collapse. But who worked to clean it up? Obama, and for that you attack him, wanting to put back into office the EXACT same team of advisers. No thanks.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

A vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote for change all right. Change in your economic status downwards.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Mountan,

Its amusing to watch you chastise the Democrats for screaming “its Bush’s fault, its Bush’s fault”
while you are screaming "it's Clinton's fault, it's Clinton's fault"

In the words of Clinton,

"It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did"

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Mountainman, not one person above has blamed Bush for the mortgage crisis. The connection is Bush cut taxes, rasied spending, rasied the deficit. How does that help us now? Secondly, bank de-regulation started long before Clinton..however he did add his part, and should be held responsible. Third, housing prices are not still falling. In fact they have started to rise in most parts of the country reflecting more accurate values. Lastly, so GM still has all of the government monies they received..hum..interesting..apparently you know somehting no one else does.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Esquire, Again, you didn’t even try to refute the facts of the real cause of our economic problems, you just chanted, “Bush, Bush, Bush”. Bill Clinton remains much more complicit in our economic problems than does GWB for all the reasons I gave you (sub-prime mortgages) All we ever hear from Obama is, “tax the rich” tax the rich”! For the 16 trillionth time, the wealthiest Americans pay nearly 80% of all the federal income tax revenue collected while nearly 50% of Americans pay NO federal income taxes! If we taxed the “rich” 100%, it wouldn’t even make small dent in our deficits and our national debt! The only solution is me must stop the out of control government spending, which Obama clearly isn’t willing to do! How can we trust liberals to fix our economy when they don’t even know what is causing the problem? Bush is not the President anymore, time to work on real solutions: Romney has them, Obama clearly does not except monotonous chats of “Bush, Bush, Bush”!

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"@ Esquire, Again, you didn’t even try to refute the facts of the real cause of our economic problems, "

Ok,

If one is so inclined to do some research, one would find that there are a multitude of causes.

According to politifact, which refutes the talking points of both the left and the right lists these as causes (incomplete list). Feel free to go there to see an explanation of these causes.

Fed Reserve, Homebuyers, Congress, Real estate Agents, Clinton Admin, Mort brokers, Greenspan, wall street firms, Bush admin,

So, yes, you have chosen to focus on the Clinton admin because that fits your partisan narrative.

Most credible source will not place the blame on any one player.

And most partisans don't really want to know what caused the problem. They just want to know how they can blame the other side.

I am guessing this will not sway you from your set of "facts"

Esquire
Springville, UT

@ Mountanman, I did in fact address those issues. Really the only thing Clinton did that he should not have done was sign off on the repeal of Phil Gramm's (R-TX) bill to repeal Glass-Steagal. I was working in the financial services industry, the Senate and at a financial services regulatory agency during that era, and I assure you, your argument is wrong and misleading. And after I addressed your points, you shifted gears and start talking about taxes. You fail to address the fact that Bush had 8 years to "fix" things. And if you don't like the tax structure, well, it was Bush who gave us the current state of affairs. So stand up and honestly say, "Yeah, the Republicans made a huge mess, and I don't like it." Then support President Obama, who is the duly elected President of the United States, as he tries to clean up the huge mess that the GOP handed to him. Can you do it?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Look at the "budget". $728 billion for military. $720 for Social Security. $788 for Medicare/Medicaid. $250 billion for interest. Add it up. Those items come to about $2.5 trillion. With total direct revenue to the government in 2011 at $2.3 trillion, does anyone but me see a problem? I haven't even listed the other $500 billion in "little programs" that have to be paid for.

When the deficit will be at least $600 billion no matter how the funds are divided up, how can anyone say that we can't cut the budget? We've got to cut it at least $600 billion just to tread water. That figure won't retire one dime of the current $16 trillion deficit that Washington has spent.

The 47% who pay no income taxes must be required to pay substantial taxes. They're the ones receiving the lions share of the spending. Without "skin in the game", they will demand even more.

Revenue must be increased by PUTTING PEOPLE TO WORK in private sector jobs. That takes them off welfare and produces income tax, solving two problems.

Romney knows how to do it. Obama does not.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Its all Bush's fault waaaaaa

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Esquire. You offered no facts, just spin! Thanks for the debate but I disagree with you about taxes, as I have stated. Have a good day!

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

"First, cutting taxes and supporting free enterprise will help bring the economy back in gear."

Second-grade arithmetic is all you need to see the fallacy in this line of thinking. Last I checked, cutting taxes reduces revenue. And the conservative cries of "supporting free enterprise" are meaningless political rhetoric. Even if this vague "supporting free enterprise" scheme had the desired effect of giving us 5 percent growth in GDP (which most experts agree is wildly optimistic), the additional taxes from a 5 percent increase in GDP wouldn't come close to closing the budget gap.

The other part of the conservative agenda, of course, is to slash spending. Frankly, I don't really care which spending you cut, the very act of slashing government expenditures will immediately shrink the economy and cost jobs (whether in health care or defense contractors or local retailers).

Our predicament, unfortunately, is far more complex than this simplistic letter acknowledges. There really is no realistic solution other than replacing debt financing with increased tax revenue. And even that is iffy. But the conservative "fixes" for our economic mess are straight out of fantasyland. I would also give them an "F" in arithmetic.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

The scary little secret that no one will acknowledge is that neither party has the least idea about what to do to endlessly grow the economy. Eternal growth is the foundation of all of our success plans. Anyone who thinks about it can figure out that growing forever as the "uniquely American story" has a natural limit. There are only so many people, no there are plenty of people, there are a limited number of people with disposable income to buy our "stuff".

Hence both parties promise the moon in hopes that they are in office when things are going well and not during a downturn that imperils their reelection. Democrats will ballon the deficit through spending. Republicans will balloon the deficit through tax cuts. Both count on growth to save them from their own helplessness to really "fix" anything.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

What is Romney cutting? He wants to increase defense spending. He claims Obama is the only one that's cutting money from Medicare. He hasn't outlined any changes to Social Security... is he going with the Ryan budget plans that severely hack away at Medicaid? It's gotta be that, otherwise all he'd have left is the 700 billion in ALL non-military discretionary spending to work with and obviously when that takes care of everything else gov't does other than entitlements war and interest on the debt... there's only so much that can be taken from that, most of which will go to his defense spending increases and pay for his tax cuts. Unless his claim is that his tax policy would be revenue neutral like Ryan's is by closing loopholes. What they don't tell you is that the number of loopholes that'd have to be closed is so large it would take away things like the earned income tax credit or the child tax credit and that leaves tax cuts for the rich, tax hikes for the poor. If he wants "tough decisions", make the rich sacrifice something too.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Remember when Bush/Cheney wanted to take Social Security funding and "invest it" [give it away] to WallStreet?

and Yes --
I'm still blaming Bush/Cheney - therfore the entire GOP - for the on-going economic meltdown.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mountanman
"Sub-prime mortgages given by government mandate to banks for people who had no ability or intention of servicing heir loans was actually started during the Clinton era that are the real cause of our economic problems. "

Democrats like Barney Frank were pushing forward plans to get people into affordable housing like apartment complexes but it was the Republicans who insisted on it going to full-blown houses. Did you ever bother to think about the fact that Republicans had the Presidency and both chambers of Congress from 2001-2006 and didn't bother to make any changes to that?

"hence the bailouts with borrowed taxpayer money"

Bailouts are loans, most get paid back with interest. That 700 billion dollar bank bailout cost roughly 0 in the end when loans were repaid.

"If we taxed the “rich” 100%, it wouldn’t even make small dent in our deficits and our national debt!"

A 3.6% marginal tax increase on the rich (repeal of bush tax cuts) is scored by the CBO as decreasing the deficit an average of 70 billion a year the next 10 years. I'm pretty sure that's at least "small dent".

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments