A vote for Romney-Ryan is a vote for change

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Sept. 11, 2012 11:51 p.m.

    You lefties are so lost! Your guy has done not one thing but impose huge debt on all Americans. My children and grandchildren will be floundering in debt for generations while your socialist guy just makes everything worse and worse.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 1:41 p.m.

    To LDS Liberal 11:44 a.m. Sept. 11, 2012

    Don't forget -- no "carried interest" taxed as long-term capital gain instead of earned income, and no ability to use tax free Cayman/Switzerland/etc. accounts.

    No way THAT would happen. Willard and his cronies would have a fit. They just might have to pay their REAL fair share.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 11, 2012 11:44 a.m.

    Mike Richards

    I'm sure that LDS Liberal has no objection to the LDS Church telling him that tithing is 10% of his income. It is always 10%.

    4:10 p.m. Sept. 10, 2012



    I'm all for a flat rate.
    and 10% would be twice what we would need if EVERYONE played by the same rules.
    [see Steve Forbes POTUS campaign, 1992]

    but, the problem with using a flattax rate [like Tithing]
    there can be NO deductions.

    No morgatege,
    No dependants,
    No charitable contributions,
    No Corporate or Business expenseses, ect.

    There in lies the rub.

    The uber-wealthy use and mis-use these tax-loop-holes and exploit them.
    Therefore, their rate is a lesser tax than those to whom they were originally intended.

    Fine - go with a flat tax,
    I'll support it.

    But - your uberwealthy mythical "rich-guy" will be fighting you tooth and nail.

    And it will not be us "liberal" all men and corporations are equal under the law.
    They only ones seeking actually getting a Government "hand-out" are those same uberwealthy Corporations.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 10:04 p.m.

    Change does seem to be the motto of the Romney-Ryan ticket. They don't seem to keep from changing their policies and promises. Romney has changed his position at least twice in the last 24 hours on one of the main political issues for this campaign - health care.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 9:29 p.m.

    I really enjoyed Bush, Cheny and Palin's speechs at the convention. the base loves each of them.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 4:13 p.m.

    Thanks for the suggestion. Respectfully, I am declining your offer.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 10, 2012 4:10 p.m.

    As usual, liberals miss the entire point. This is OUR country. It doesn't belong to the rich and it doesn't belong to the poor. It belongs to ALL of us. Because it belongs to ALL of us, we ALL need to pay the necessary taxes at equal rates.

    I'm sure that LDS Liberal has no objection to the LDS Church telling him that tithing is 10% of his income. It isn't 20% when he makes more than anybody else in his ward and it isn't 80% when he makes more than anybody else in his stake. It is always 10%. (That doesn't limit his generosity, because I'm fairly certain that he gives much more than that as an additional charitable donaiton to help the poor.)

    Why then does he, or anyone else demand that the government use a graduated tax bracket when a flat rate is good enough for our Creator? Does our Creator know something about INCENTIVE that the liberals have yet to learn?

    With Obama, there is absolutely no incentive for anyone, rich or poor to work at all.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 2:33 p.m.

    Hayden, ID
    If we taxed the “rich” 100%, it wouldn’t even make small dent in our deficits and our national debt!
    8:17 a.m. Sept. 10, 2012

    Not true at all…

    What part of the 1% owning 80% of EVERYTHING don’t you understand?

    For example;
    If Mitt Romney paid 10% in his taxes [as he claims but refuses to prove],
    that is the same as 1,000 Joe the Plumbers Americans.

    If Mitt Romney paid 20% on his taxes, then those same 1,000 Joe the plumbers never need to pay ANY taxes at all and the Government still collects the same amount.

    THAT’S how absurdity rich the uber-rich really truly are.
    THAT’S how absurdity out of whack the tax codes are already.

    And Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck can do the same for 3,000 average Joe-the-Plumbers each….but they will never tell you that. It’s the uber-rich’s dirty-little-secret....and they want to keep it that way. --
    Except for Warren Beffet and Bill Gates that is....

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 2:25 p.m.


    Let's pretend for a moment that you are right in that raising the tax rates (another 3.6%) on the wealthiest Americans will bring in an extra $70 billion a year...

    1) What makes you think that the extra taxes will not drive even more money overseas? You just added another 3.6% incentive for some billionaire to put even more of his money in an off-shore account or put it to use in China, Brazil, or India instead of the USA.

    2) What makes you think that this will reduce the deficit at all? Big government will swallow that $70 billion without even blinking. They will spend even more because you told them the answer to the problem is to tax more instead of spending less.

    3) What makes you think that $70 billion in the hands of government will be put to any better use than it would have been in the hands of those who earned it? Why would anyone other than political cronies benefit from this action?

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 12:27 p.m.

    Forget what Reagan said about the Status Quo.

    If the rest of you continue voting for Ivy Leaguers regardless of party affiliation then US politics will be a living application of Einstein's definition of insanity.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 11:35 a.m.

    Back to Bush policies and tea party shortsighted obstruction. Will be good to be a hedge fund manager if they win.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 10:47 a.m.

    @ Mountanman, don't run away.

    You wanted facts and I gave them to you:

    1. The tax structure we have is due to the Bush tax cuts.

    2. Bush was in for 8 years and didn't fix a thing. At the end, we got the worst recession since the Great Depression.

    3. Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal, a bill drafted and carried by Phil Gramm (and Rep. Leach, R-IA). I disapproved then and do now.

    4. Both Romney and Ryan on the Sunday talk shows said they didn't know what cuts or loopholes they would close.

    5. Since 1980, the GOP has controlled the White House 20 out of 32 years, much with a GOP controlled Congress.

    6. A mere eight days after Obama took the oath of office, Romney attacked Obama because he had not yet cleaned upthe mess that the GOP left him.

    7. It took 12 years and a world war to pull us out of the depression.

    Gosh, there are more facts I mentioned but I am out of the space allocated. Just because you don't want to hear the facts doesn't make it spin.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 10:45 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "That figure won't retire one dime of the current $16 trillion deficit that Washington has spent. "

    We don't need to do that. We just need to have the debt:GDP ratio stop increasing and preferably start decreasing it and we can do that if say GDP goes up 5% a year while the debt only goes up 1%. So we don't even need a balanced budget, we just need to get them much smaller for fiscal solvency.

    Last year I think GDP went up 3%, since our debt is at 16 trillion, to get the debt:GDP ratio to decrease, we just need debt to go up less than 3% a year if GDP goes up 3%. 3% of 16 trillion is 480 billion, so that is the minimum standard we need to get to to keep debt:GDP the same.

    "The 47% who pay no income taxes must be required to pay substantial taxes. "

    They still pay sales, property, and payroll taxes. Possibly also state income taxes. It's not like all of them are paying 0 tax. Bottom 40% only own 0.2% of wealth in the nation.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 10:38 a.m.

    "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".

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 10:32 a.m.

    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
    Sept. 10, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    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.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 10:25 a.m.

    "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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 10, 2012 9:45 a.m.

    @ 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!

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    Its all Bush's fault waaaaaa

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 10, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 9:10 a.m.

    @ 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?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 10, 2012 8:48 a.m.

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


    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"

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 10, 2012 8:17 a.m.

    @ 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”!

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 10, 2012 8:11 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 10, 2012 8:06 a.m.


    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"

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 7:51 a.m.

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

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 7:48 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 10, 2012 7:30 a.m.

    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
    Sept. 10, 2012 6:16 a.m.

    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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 6:15 a.m.

    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.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 10, 2012 5:12 a.m.

    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!"

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 10, 2012 4:33 a.m.

    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?