Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Mudslinging between both political parities must stop

Comments

Return To Article
  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Dec. 3, 2012 4:11 p.m.

    SG in SLC:

    Yet another diatribe about how rich people are not "paying their fair share" because the FICA tax is capped at $110K of earnings.

    Social Security was sold to the American people as a kind of "forced retirement savings plan". Have money taken out of your earnings and placed in a "trust fund" so that you will have something to draw upon in your golden years. Pay in a limited amount, get back a limited defined benefit once you retire.

    In reality it is instead a Ponzi scheme, since all the money you pay in is immediately withdrawn to pay current retirees (but that is beside the point). It was never intented to be a general tax where rich people have to pay in $100 for every $1 they get back. So you must either cap the amount that must be paid in each year or you have to pay people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett $100,000 a month in social security payments when they retire.

    401(k) contributions are also capped, but people like you won't complain about that because I own my 401(k) balance, not the government (for now at least).

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 3, 2012 12:13 p.m.

    I am trying to figure out how you can get unbiased information through the media? You have many different news networks that are highly biased towards liberals and just a couple that are conservative. No network is free from bias, so how is a lazy american supposed to get the critical information about a politician without any bias?

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    @J Thompson

    There absolutely IS a means test when it comes time to pay.

    In 2012, every dollar that you earn in excess of $110,100 is exempt from the Social Security portion of FICA. So, the bottom 4 quintiles pay Social Security FICA on 100% of their earned income, while the top 20% of income earners pay Social Security FICA on less than 100% (and in some cases, much less than 100%) of their earned income. Add to that the fact that there is no FICA tax at all on capital gains (an income source biased heavily toward the top quintile), and there is clearly a de facto means test on paying FICA.

    With regard to eliminating mudslinging -- it's a laudable goal, but as others have said, it ain't gonna happen. Truth-in-campaign-advertising and campaign finance reform are political third-rails, and nobody is about to touch them any time soon.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Dec. 3, 2012 9:15 a.m.

    How do you stop 200 years of mud-slinging?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 3, 2012 9:14 a.m.

    JoeCapitalist2
    Orem, UT
    LDS Liberal,

    So...which candidate with the letter R after his/her name did you vote for in this past election?

    9:06 a.m. Dec. 3, 2012

    ================

    I wrote in Jon M. Huntsman Jr. for POTUS.
    When you write in, there is no party letter next to or assocaited with it.

    BTW - I also voted for a few local candidates who happened to have the letter R.
    But it was not the reason I voted for them.

    No party "owns' me,
    I'm a Free man.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Dec. 3, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    So...which candidate with the letter R after his/her name did you vote for in this past election?

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Dec. 3, 2012 8:14 a.m.

    Especially fro the right.
    No matter. The voters did the right thing. They chose the left.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 2, 2012 11:11 p.m.

    I wondering which is worse...

    Those who are influencted by political TV ads,
    or
    Those who walk into a voting boot, select the letter "R" (or granted, some for the letter "D") and then walk out.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 2, 2012 8:45 p.m.

    Seriously, my post here this morning was pretty benign, and well under 200 words. Yet it got canned.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Dec. 2, 2012 8:26 p.m.

    Let't not confuse limiting payments to doctors with welfare. The government has the right to limit welfare payments when the recipient has made no forced contribution to that "program". We are charged for Medicare. We are charged for Social Security. The government forced us to participate with the promise that we would receive the promised benefits when our time came to receive those benefits. There was no "means test" when it came time to pay. There can be no "means test" when it's the governments turn to keep its end of the deal.

    The government spent the money it received for Social Security and for Medicare. It has no authority to underpay doctors to correct that misuse of funds.

    Limiting spending is required. Underpaying for services rendered is not the way to limit spending.

    Putting people to work so that they are no burden to government is the only way to correct Obama's mess, campaign promises not withstanding. He's going to prove that Romney's campaign statements was 100% correct.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 2, 2012 6:31 p.m.

    "Let's look at the $700 billion that Obama is going to save Medicare."

    Several posters have written to criticize Obama about the $700 billion in savings.

    Did you all forget that Paul Ryan touted the same savings number in his plan?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 2, 2012 5:38 p.m.

    JThompson we can talk about your facts later the point to this discussion is that Boener and the Reprublicans say that Obama is unwilling to make any cuts in welfare services..yet you yourself claim that he's cutting it to the point of limiting services...which is it?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Dec. 2, 2012 4:43 p.m.

    Let's look at the $700 billion that Obama is going to save Medicare. Who is not going to be paid? If something is saved, money is not being spent. Healthcare providers who take Medicare patients will not be paid at the same rate that they're paid today.

    How many doctors take Medicare without requiring the patient to pay the difference? How many seniors cannot find doctors and hospitals who will treat them at current Medicare rates?

    Ask your own doctor whether he will take new Medicare patients. My doctors will not. They say that already they're losing money on Medicare patients. The government rejects needed services and underpays others. Cutting payments to doctors and hospitals is the surest method of excluding seniors from health care.

    Is that what you want? Is that part of the, "take a pain pill and deal with it" philosophy, that Obamacare is accused of having?

    Instead of blindly accepting Obama's talking points, dig a little into the real world. It's not going to be the world that Obama is "selling".

    Mudslinging caused many senior citizens to vote for Obama because they didn't accept the truth. Already, the "truth" is changing.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 2, 2012 4:35 p.m.

    Mike Richards,

    Are people influenced by political advertising? The folks whose job it is to get their candidate elected sure think so. They aren't spending those billions for laughs.

    Does that mean that the voters get good information? No. But advertising does influence people's behavior. If not, capitalism is inefficient (and I do not think that claim would bear up under scrutiny).

    Here is my prediction. Despite all the talking heads saying that advertising doesn't make much of a difference, when the next tight election comes around, political commercials will carpet bomb the viewing area. Depend on it.

    Money matters. Period.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 2, 2012 2:55 p.m.

    Mike there's no magic to it and the President has said where ther 700 billion in savings is coming from. It's coming from monies not spent. Not spent on, administrative costs, not spent on reimbursements to providers, not spent on medicines etc. It only has to come from some where if it's going to be spent. Monies not spent are just savings.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2012 2:04 p.m.

    Already some people are citing Obama's "campaign promises" about the costs of Obamacare (and the "savings" promised to the American people). They haven't done their home-work. They haven't asked "how" $700 billion can magically be saved without taking $700 billion from somewhere else.

    There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine and there is no such thing as "savings" of any kind in Obamacare. If Obama says something often enough, does a "lie" transform into the "truth"?

    For years, Obama has demanded that the "rich guy" be taxed at a higher rate. The CBO has told us that taxing the "rich guy" at Obama's proposed rate would increase revenues by $60 billion a year. Obama told us he needed to raise revenues by $800 billion a year. That's 13 times more tax revenue than the "rich guy" is going to pay. Now Obama is telling us that he needs $1.6 TRILLION more in revenue to fund his programs. That's 26 times more than taxing the "rich guy" will produce.

    Who's going to pay those taxes?

    Watch out. YOUR wallet is under attack. You just don't know it yet, campaign promises notwithstanding.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 2, 2012 1:09 p.m.

    I have to agree with Mike when he writes, " Are we a nation of ignoramuses who are expected to believe what a candidate says about himself or what a PR firm says about a candidate?"

    And when he says, "Lazy people never research a person's history."

    Those comment explain why Romney managed to get 47% of the nation's votes (there's that 47 again), and why Republicans manage to be returned to office after trying so hard to wreck the nation.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 2, 2012 12:56 p.m.

    Actually Mike the President has not campaigned for "unlimited" spending. The ACA alone has over 700 billion is medicare savings. His 2013 budget has thousands of proposed budget cuts (you can look at it on line) and the CBO projects that by 2015 the annual deficit will be below the GWB 2008 budget. Wheter all that happens is still an unknown, but it's patently false to say he campaigned on "unlimited" spending.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2012 12:37 p.m.

    Why would anyone make a political choice based on advertising? Are we a nation of ignoramuses who are expected to believe what a candidate says about himself or what a PR firm says about a candidate? Do we blindly believe the "near slander" paid for by a candidate when he feels he needs to attack his competition?

    In a Presidential election, the candidates are well known. They have histories. It is easy to see how they handled large problems. We can clearly see that Obama's solution to budget problems is to fly around in Air Force One and "campaign" for higher taxes and unlimited spending. He did that for his first four years and he's doing it again. It should not be a surprise to anyone.

    Nothing that Obama said about Romney could change history and nothing that Romney said about Obama could change history.

    Lazy people never research a person's history. Lazy reporters never question candidates.

    Ad agencies and media outlets made billions. Nothing changed. Nothing will change. The histrionics will continue.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Dec. 2, 2012 10:51 a.m.

    I don't think 235 years of precedence will change when you have the 4th Estate as deep into corporate greed as the politicans.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Dec. 2, 2012 9:45 a.m.

    Nice sentiment, never gonna happen.

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    Dec. 2, 2012 9:08 a.m.

    Speak for yourself, Nicholas. Sweeping generalities are nice but generally untrue and always misleading. Do you really think all the money the Super PACs poured onto the airwaves had that much influence? I'd call it a big waste of money, but what it really did was took money out of the pockets of one group that has too much and transferred it to the pockets of another group that has too much. The net effect was negligible.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 2, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    People need to know things that could hamper someones chance at being an effected officer. Besides isn't that protected by the First amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Libel needs to be dealt with. However we employ the representatives. If someone works for you or is applying for a job you need to know if they will or won't be good employees. Some things people need to know.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 2, 2012 7:54 a.m.

    A good letter. But it may be missing something important.

    Weren't most of the really muddy TV ads produced by PACs and SuperPACs funded by anonymous unlimited donations from who knows who?

    Perhaps the first step would be to overturn Citizens United and come up with some campaign finance laws that contain real teeth.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 2, 2012 7:50 a.m.

    ahhh No.