About 70% of the American deficit is “bought” directly or through the banking system by the Treasury’s 100% subsidiary, the Federal Reserve, and the minimal interest paid on it is recycled back through the Federal Reserve to the Treasury, so the cost of borrowing is zero. It is the ultimate Ponzi scheme, the fiscal nirvana of endless, mountainous debt, rendered easily bearable because it doesn’t cost anything. It is a fraud, a mirage. It all possesses the hypnotic allure of the Gotterdammerung — as the Gods ascend to a burning Valhalla. If this administration is re-elected, Canada, as it has for the entire mighty spectacle of the inexorable rise of the United States, will have the ring-side seat for a disaster.
Voting machines from Spain (owned in whole or part by a sleaze bag thug from Canada – ‘unca Mo’, to Robert Rhay) will ‘decide’ the election in America. Romney proved that the machines could be programed in his Republican run. Anyone faintly familiar with programing protocol will certainly know how the process works. Msm has ignored this elephant in the room.
But look at the facts that john chooses to ignore.
First, he ignores that Romney’s income doesn’t come from wages but from investment. Wage income is taxed ONCE. Investment income is taxed TWICE. First, at the investment source, with a capital or corporate tax rate of 35%, the second highest in the world.
The Canadian corporate tax rate is 16.5%. Hmmm. What does that do? It leaves Investment capital in the hands of private businesses, to invest in expanding and increasing the business. To create more wealth. More jobs. John doesn’t know this.
Then, john ignores that this same money, which is taxed first at 35%, is then, in part, given to the individual investor. A SECOND tax is added on, anywhere from 12 to 20%. Romney paid 13.6 in 2011.
john ignores that this same money is taxed TWICE and thus, the government gets MORE than that individual middle class worker whose wages are only taxed once. Why does john ignore these facts?
john has also adamantly ignored the FACT that over 600 economists, five of them nobel laureates, support Romney’s plan. Why, john declares that Romney doesn’t have a plan! All he has to do is go to that site and he’ll see it. But just like Obama, who also rejects facts (he declared that he couldn’t remember the amount of the debt)…john isn’t interested in facts.
Facts don’t operate as ‘left or right opinions’. They are indifferent to such subjective polarities. Facts exist, john, all on their objective own.
Now, john, tell us how the GOP will destroy the middle class. You’ve told us they will do this. So, tell us how. And don’t try to divert the focus on complaints that we call you a ‘leftwing nut’. Stick to the facts.
So far, what you’ve told us about Romney and his taxes, about economists not supporting him, about the cause of the recession, about how to fix the debt, have all been wrong. You haven’t acknowledged this. So, now, tell us how the GOP will destroy the middle class.
Nice try John, more dishonesty from you. The articles you cite talk about a financial crisis, an event, such as the sub-prime crisis (oh yeah Dems and GOP are to blame for that, and the GOP eviscerated itself over this – many of us though GWB went way to far with his fiscal policy)- not “Obama inherited an economic disaster not seen since the depression.” No rational person would argue that 2008 is the same economic situation as the 1930s.
In any event, how is that justification for making the US economy even weaker in 2012 than 2008, continuing to bleed jobs as the recession ended and way more debt added than the Bush administration?
What you have cited is an opinion, not a fact; don’t present it as such. Deal with the facts:
– $trillions added to federal debt
– unemployment higher than 2008 and getting worse
– disengagement on foreign policy, apologizing to those who clearly hate the west, helping to make the ME/Iran more dangerous places.
– Obama’s Cairo speech, full of postmodernist rhetoric and guilt (Maybe the book/movie Obama 2016 isn’t so far-fetched after all.
The Guardian refers to a financial “shock” and the WSJ to a “disaster.” Perhaps I’m being too semantic, fair enough. But, to claim the Great Depression was repeated in 2008 is sheer nonsense, and you know it. You mislead with omission, that’s my point. Again, you haven’t bothered to address why it’s OK for Obama/Dem Congress to make the economic situation much worse.
At the start of his presidency, Obama stated if he didn’t fix the problems, he’d be a one-term president. Now almost four years laster with debt and unemployment higher, he says he’s not responsible (what poor leadership) and needs more time to fix the mess, the mess for which he and the Dem dominated Congress are responsible as well, even more so, given the three years of borrowing and statism. Perhaps you have a link to explain that.
Have you bothered to check debt servicing costs, whose growth would justify your defence of Obama/Dem Congress running up the federal debt; no, you haven’t. Hint: it’s not so.
Like I said guys like John pick one word or issue, and ignore everthing else.
Dad recounted one life lesson he learned from his Dad. One year their crop was destroyed by hail. Using the last of his cash reserves Grandpa planted a crop the next year. Wouldn’t you know it the second crop met the same fate as the first. Grandpa went to work off of the farm and Grandma did likewise. They raised enough money to plant a third crop. That year was a record breaking crop and it more than made up for the two lost years. Moral of the story – Its not what you’re given its what you do with what you’re given. Obama inherited a mess. Obama did nothing to fix the mess. He just blamed what he had received on him from whom he had received it.
John
U claim a left-leaning centerist position (is that financialy or politically?), and yet you try and “emotionalize” the issues, and that my friend is a “well left of centre” position. So John, try dealing in facts and logic, as Shamrock and ET point out to you, and quit talking to yer fridge, the damn thing E-mailed me to complain about you!!!!
What can you expect from someone who converses with his fridge,I don’t want to know the relatioship he has with his dryer.
That’s one of the best CB commentaries I have read in a long time. Absolutely on the money, and beautifully written.
@ET,
I checked out Economists for Romney. Confusing. Because these guys say that the math simply does not add up. That Romney cannot cut taxes like he is promising without losing revenue, thus making the deficit even worse than it already is.
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/
Wish I could spend more time here obsessively talking about American politics, but you know, I sort of have a life.
In the end, Romney is a bum. Hopefully he loses, and with him goes the radical conservatism that has dominated the GOP the past 20 years. It’s time for a rational conservatism. One that doesn’t support the erosion of the middleclass, to enrich a tiny minority.
John has resorted to talking to his fridge because he simply cannot make heads or tails out of the lies the dems and Obama tell.
Lesson One: Democrats controlled Congress from 2006 midterms until the 2010 Midterms. They still control the Senate and the WH.
THAT is the major reason there was a mess.
Bush had to deal with two wars and their cost. Those wars brought on by the country being attacked.
To sum up: Democrats spend like drunken sailors and endlessly tell everybody else what to do.
End of lesson One.
Lesson Two: Democrats won in 2008. For two years they controlled ALL branches of government. Passed Obamacare , squandered billions of dollars on pet projects and fav donors and put 23 million people out of work. They have assaulted their own country and countrymen with idiotic policies designed to enslave and hamper any economic growth whatsoever.
To sum up: Democrats are theives and scoundrels and liars to boot.
End of lesson Two.
Lesson Three: Learn and live lessons one and two.
There endeth the lessons.
John, you may be confusd by the economists supporting Romney but that is your problem. What is disturbing is that you are misrepresenting what they wrote. Why are you doing this?
You wrote: ‘these guys say that the math simply does not add up. That Romney cannot cut taxes like he is promising without losing revenue, thus making the deficit even worse than it already is.’
Could you point out to us where these economists say even one word of the above?
At 9.26 above, I pasted what they wrote about Romney and Obama. They said that Obama was increasing the debt, etc.
Indeed, they propose various cuts, and removing loopholes, ie, a reform of the tax system.
Furthermore, you are also ignoring that cutting taxes is an economic value, because it leaves capital in the hands of private investors. The only way an economy grows is if private investors invest money into private businesses. An economy collapses if the government takes it all to redistribute for consumption.
Canada’s corporate tax is 15% as of 2012; the US is 35%.
Again, you haven’t explained how Romney’s plan will erode the middle class. You need to define what you mean by middle class; I suspect it’s a false definition.
And don’t, when others point out the flaws in your argument, resort to insults; that’s childish.
I have no idea what ‘radical conservativism’ means, nor do I have any idea what ‘rational conservativism’ means. Flinging terms around without meaning isn’t an argument.
Further to show that John’s argument that no economists support Romney is specious and empty, and his further actually misinforming us that those same economists disagreed with Romney’s economic plan (John tells us ‘these guys say that the math simply does not add up’. John’s statement is a total lie)…
the blog site 2008 ‘Economists for Obama’ is now defunct.
There are very few economists who support Obama’s high taxes, increase of government bureaucracy, decrease of capital investment and its concomitant destruction of the middle class. Indeed, the owner of that blog now writes that he feels that Obama doesn’t understand the economic situation.
‘The Congressional Budget Office warned just two weeks ago that the budget and tax policies President Obama signed into law “will probably lead to a recession in 2013 and to an unemployment rate that remains above 8% through 2014.”
The official “Economists for Obama” blog is now defunct, the author of this blog served on the staff of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. Indeed, the author now writes that he feels that Obama doesn’t understand the economic situation. That’s it from Economists for Obama.
Do any economists support Obama now? Hmm. Well, there’s Krugman. And Krugman. And Krugman. Anyone else?
Obama or Romney, there is very little difference. Ron Paul was the only one talking common sense.
Obama or Romney, there is very little difference. Ron Paul was the only one talking common sense. dave
Sorry there, dave, but of the two, Romney and Obama, only Obama is a doctrinaire socialist who promise 4 more years of economic depression. Of the two, only Obama took hundreds of billions of dollars from senior citizens by draining Medicare of full government support.
Of the two, only Obama set up rationing boards to deny elderly people healthcare.
Of the two, only Romney will repeal Obamacare.
Yeah, there is no difference between them.