Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the class warfare. I hate that there seems to be only two choice - tax one set of people more than they are taxed now or take food from people who need it. The problem is that we are all in this together, but neither party or candidate is acting like it.

Some people we don't need the entitlement need to put their hand back in their pockets and people who can afford to pay a little more need to do so if we want our children to inherit a workable economy.

Instead, we are being told by Obama only the "rich" need to suck it up and by Romney that no one should receive assistance. There is a middle ground here, but it means both sides need to compromise (I.e., give up something they want) and that isn't going to happen in the current polarized populous.

Well said. Where I think Obama is doing nearly irreparable harm is with the notion that the rich are not paying a "fair share". Instead he should say that Washington f'd up and desperately needs help from everyone. He needs to address spending and entitlements at the same time as he raises taxes on everyone. Of course most of the new taxes will come from the higher brackets as the do now. But I want to see an America where nearly everyone has skin in the game.

I think Romney should tell the middle class that they don't have skin in the game.

Seriously how tone deaf are you?

what are you talking about, Willis? 47 percent of filers pay no federal income tax. they need to start paying something, if only 50 Or 100 dollars. I didn't say anything about the middle class. Most people we would call middle class do pay income taxes. Probably around 25% of the total collected. That's skin, right?

So you want the poor to have more skin in the game?

Anonymous wrote:All of you people wanting Obama to "address entitlements" are going to be the first to go batshit when Romney privatizes Social Security (putting your retirement in the hands of Wall Street) and issues Medicare vouchers that won't begin pay for your parent's health care so they have to move in with you.

So I take it that you do not see a problem with the current trajectory of entitlement spending?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the class warfare. I hate that there seems to be only two choice - tax one set of people more than they are taxed now or take food from people who need it. The problem is that we are all in this together, but neither party or candidate is acting like it.

Some people we don't need the entitlement need to put their hand back in their pockets and people who can afford to pay a little more need to do so if we want our children to inherit a workable economy.

Instead, we are being told by Obama only the "rich" need to suck it up and by Romney that no one should receive assistance. There is a middle ground here, but it means both sides need to compromise (I.e., give up something they want) and that isn't going to happen in the current polarized populous.

Well said. Where I think Obama is doing nearly irreparable harm is with the notion that the rich are not paying a "fair share". Instead he should say that Washington f'd up and desperately needs help from everyone. He needs to address spending and entitlements at the same time as he raises taxes on everyone. Of course most of the new taxes will come from the higher brackets as the do now. But I want to see an America where nearly everyone has skin in the game.

I think Romney should tell the middle class that they don't have skin in the game.

Seriously how tone deaf are you?

what are you talking about, Willis? 47 percent of filers pay no federal income tax. they need to start paying something, if only 50 Or 100 dollars. I didn't say anything about the middle class. Most people we would call middle class do pay income taxes. Probably around 25% of the total collected. That's skin, right?

Anonymous wrote:All of you people wanting Obama to "address entitlements" are going to be the first to go batshit when Romney privatizes Social Security (putting your retirement in the hands of Wall Street)

And a less-regulated Wall Street at that.

All of you people wanting Obama to "address entitlements" are going to be the first to go batshit when Romney privatizes Social Security (putting your retirement in the hands of Wall Street) and issues Medicare vouchers that won't begin pay for your parent's health care so they have to move in with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the class warfare. I hate that there seems to be only two choice - tax one set of people more than they are taxed now or take food from people who need it. The problem is that we are all in this together, but neither party or candidate is acting like it.

Some people we don't need the entitlement need to put their hand back in their pockets and people who can afford to pay a little more need to do so if we want our children to inherit a workable economy.

Instead, we are being told by Obama only the "rich" need to suck it up and by Romney that no one should receive assistance. There is a middle ground here, but it means both sides need to compromise (I.e., give up something they want) and that isn't going to happen in the current polarized populous.

Well said. Where I think Obama is doing nearly irreparable harm is with the notion that the rich are not paying a "fair share". Instead he should say that Washington f'd up and desperately needs help from everyone. He needs to address spending and entitlements at the same time as he raises taxes on everyone. Of course most of the new taxes will come from the higher brackets as the do now. But I want to see an America where nearly everyone has skin in the game.

I think Romney should tell the middle class that they don't have skin in the game.

Seriously how tone deaf are you?

Anonymous wrote:I hate the class warfare. I hate that there seems to be only two choice - tax one set of people more than they are taxed now or take food from people who need it. The problem is that we are all in this together, but neither party or candidate is acting like it.

Some people we don't need the entitlement need to put their hand back in their pockets and people who can afford to pay a little more need to do so if we want our children to inherit a workable economy.

Instead, we are being told by Obama only the "rich" need to suck it up and by Romney that no one should receive assistance. There is a middle ground here, but it means both sides need to compromise (I.e., give up something they want) and that isn't going to happen in the current polarized populous.

Well said. Where I think Obama is doing nearly irreparable harm is with the notion that the rich are not paying a "fair share". Instead he should say that Washington f'd up and desperately needs help from everyone. He needs to address spending and entitlements at the same time as he raises taxes on everyone. Of course most of the new taxes will come from the higher brackets as the do now. But I want to see an America where nearly everyone has skin in the game.

Anonymous wrote:I would rather give directly to charities that provide a hand up than to government that provides a hand out...

Wow such a clever yet meaningless turn of phrase. Providing child care for a mother so she can work is a handout according to you, but a church's food and clothing drive is a hand up.

I think you will find that very little charitable giving is directed at getting people into jobs.

I would rather give directly to charities that provide a hand up than to government that provides a hand out...

I hate the class warfare. I hate that there seems to be only two choice - tax one set of people more than they are taxed now or take food from people who need it. The problem is that we are all in this together, but neither party or candidate is acting like it.

Some people we don't need the entitlement need to put their hand back in their pockets and people who can afford to pay a little more need to do so if we want our children to inherit a workable economy.

Instead, we are being told by Obama only the "rich" need to suck it up and by Romney that no one should receive assistance. There is a middle ground here, but it means both sides need to compromise (I.e., give up something they want) and that isn't going to happen in the current polarized populous.

“Well, two can play at that game. If you’re one of the millions of Americans counted as part of the eight percent unemployed, you didn’t get there on your own. Somebody else made that happen. And he’s running for reelection.”

Anonymous wrote:Now Mitt is saying that "you didn't build that business" was not a gaffe but an ideology. Damn, Mitt, it was neither, because you are distorting what he said. And it's not a misunderstanding, it's an intentional misrepresentation. My bumper sticker says "HE DIDN'T SAY THAT."

Mittens isn't capable of saying/doing the things the wingnuts have thrown at Obama for four straight years. If getting dirty is his plan, he is screwed.

1929 - 1941 not 1939 - 1941. Sorry for that a a couple other typos as well.

Only fools believe Presidents have magical powers to go poof and create millions of jobs. Both Bush and Obama deserve credit for creating TARP, because this recession had the potential of being as catastrophic as the Great Depression of 1939-1941. Yes 1941, it took twelve years, Pearl Harbor and a world war to break the U.S. out of the Great Depression.

Ironically many of the causes of the Great Depression also contributed to our current recession. President Obama has done what FDR did before him and that has been to create jobs build the nation's infrastructure in the forms of improved roads and light rail systems, e.g. the Dulles Metro Line extension. Spending programs like this across the country are worthwhile and they will pay nationwide dividends decades into the future. We lived on infrastructure improvements made in the 30s for fifty years or more. Some of those improvement from the 30s are still being used today.

It's unfortunate so much of presidential elections revolve around demagoguery. I'm sure that Bain Capital did outsource jobs overseas. It happens all the time and it doesn't make Mitt Romney a bad man. It just makes him a shrewd businessman. President Obama has create some jobs, but not enough to drive the unemployment rate down below 8%. BTW there is such a thing as ideal unemployment which is 4.5 - 5.0% so we are actually three points away from ideal unemployment, not eight.

Give President Obama the credit he deserves for being a good President and keeping us economically afloat during these past difficult years. Do that and it would be unnecessary to insist on seeing Mr. Romney's tax returns or counting the number of American jobs that were outsourced to foreign countries by Bain Capital while he was the CEO of the corporation.

Now Mitt is saying that "you didn't build that business" was not a gaffe but an ideology. Damn, Mitt, it was neither, because you are distorting what he said. And it's not a misunderstanding, it's an intentional misrepresentation. My bumper sticker says "HE DIDN'T SAY THAT."