mitt romney; the candidate of transparency?

[carlfense]

I hate all these one-liner, gotcha images, T-shirts, slogans, whatever. They do so little for discourse. I reject almost every one of them on sight, because to put it plainly, they are bold-facedly asking you to turn off your critical thinking skills. That request should be highly offensive to everybody. "Hey, if you'll just turn off the brain for a moment, ..."

Me too. +1

[carlfense]

So, to recap, it's OK when Republicans expand government. Just not when Democrats do it. Makes perfect sense.

And there's the crux of the problem.

 

Obama increases spending? DOOOM!

 

Bush turns a budget surplus into a massive deficit? Who cares?

 

 

 

 

 

It reminds me of the old line about everyone being Keynesians when there is a Republican in the White House.

[knapplc]

No, it's not ok when Republicans do it...........they are just as wrong when they do it as in this particular case.

 

My point during this thread was Obama's generalized view of an expanded government..................... I used the cell phone issue as an example of expanded government regardless......

 

Probably a poor choice to have the phone example juxtaposed within this thread of Romney/Obama......

 

But you're using "expanded government" as a tool to explain how Obama = bad for the country, when it's not even his program. You cannot contrast Obama & Romney by using programs that Obama didn't even start. You cannot blame Obama for "expanding the government" when Republican presidents are the ones doing the expanding. It's a spurious argument.

 

I'm on board with you if you want to say that Obama has had some misfires. Everyone (I believe) will agree that Obamacare isn't what we need to fix our healthcare problems, for example. But when we're talking about a president's shortcomings, it helps to be accurate about those shortcomings.

[carlfense]

But when we're talking about a president's shortcomings, it helps to be accurate about those shortcomings.

[Comish]

Under the ubiquitous guise of "fairness", assuming that anyone who has accumulated some artificial threshold of "wealth", has done so unfairly and must surrender more of it to those without it.

Do you think that someone who earns $20 million dollars a year should pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who earns $100,000?

 

Also, do you know the basics of marginal tax rates?

Your condescension knows no bounds..........

perceived condescension aside, he brings up a good point. i see a fundamental difference between what people believe is fair (or wealthy, or what each class owes or does not owe), but it might help if the tax code was simplified and more understandable. also, if we had a better understanding of how tax dollars are actually spent in the aggregate, rather than anecdotal stories (whether it be these welfare programs run amok stories or these stories of rich people paying less of a tax rate than their help. although, as a liberal i am more concerned with the latter).

Agree with every word of this....

Make the tax code one page. Don't need a lawyer to understand it. Don't need an accountant to interpret it. Myriad problems solved.

 

The problem is..........the tax code is what gives CONGRESS their power. It will never happen.

[knapplc]

Agree with every word of this....

Make the tax code one page. Don't need a lawyer to understand it. Don't need an accountant to interpret it. Myriad problems solved.

 

The problem is..........the tax code is what gives CONGRESS their power. It will never happen.

 

Agreed, agreed & agreed. We need change that we won't get with the status quo. If I had the answer to fix this I'd tell everyone. Sadly... I'm not that smart.

[strigori]

Under the ubiquitous guise of "fairness", assuming that anyone who has accumulated some artificial threshold of "wealth", has done so unfairly and must surrender more of it to those without it.

Do you think that someone who earns $20 million dollars a year should pay a lower effective tax rate than someone who earns $100,000?

 

Also, do you know the basics of marginal tax rates?

Your condescension knows no bounds..........

perceived condescension aside, he brings up a good point. i see a fundamental difference between what people believe is fair (or wealthy, or what each class owes or does not owe), but it might help if the tax code was simplified and more understandable. also, if we had a better understanding of how tax dollars are actually spent in the aggregate, rather than anecdotal stories (whether it be these welfare programs run amok stories or these stories of rich people paying less of a tax rate than their help. although, as a liberal i am more concerned with the latter).

Agree with every word of this....

Make the tax code one page. Don't need a lawyer to understand it. Don't need an accountant to interpret it. Myriad problems solved.

 

The problem is..........the tax code is what gives CONGRESS their power. It will never happen.

You won't see it because a tax code that simple is either even and balanced and the wealthy pay more under it. Or it ends up being even more regressive than our current code. The later is political suicide, and the former...well are the rich men in congress going to vote to increase their taxes and the taxes for the richer men that bought them? Not a chance.

 

Before we get a revised tax code, we need a revised set of rules for who can serve in Congress, and what they are and are not allowed to own and oversee. Way, way too many conflicts of interest.

 

Its also sad sorry state that we can't get our best and brightest into running the country, we end up with the greedy and the corrupt much more often than not.

[knapplc]

Posts intended to incite others have been removed. Don't post stuff like that again.

[Comish]

Agree with Strigori

 

While I don't think we can limit WHO can run for office, I think we should limit how long they can serve. (you know, like the framers intended.............do a couple years of public service and go home and let somebody else serve). Thus, I support term limits and don't buy the argument that we would lose valuable experience. That experience turns into a life long job, most of it raising money to remain in office.

It still amazes me we allow congress to exempt themselves from so many laws (such as harassment). Or the health care mandate. If it's such a great deal, put them in it as well.

Of course, who is going to vote to limit themselves? Although a few have tried to introduce legislation, it has gotten nowhere.

The real indicator is to look at net worth of congressmen before serving and after. Pretty eye-opening.

[strigori]

Agree with Strigori

 

While I don't think we can limit WHO can run for office, I think we should limit how long they can serve. (you know, like the framers intended.............do a couple years of public service and go home and let somebody else serve). Thus, I support term limits and don't buy the argument that we would lose valuable experience. That experience turns into a life long job, most of it raising money to remain in office.

It still amazes me we allow congress to exempt themselves from so many laws (such as harassment). Or the health care mandate. If it's such a great deal, put them in it as well.

Of course, who is going to vote to limit themselves? Although a few have tried to introduce legislation, it has gotten nowhere.

The real indicator is to look at net worth of congressmen before serving and after. Pretty eye-opening.

Exactly. You would be hard pressed to ever find a congressman who leaves office worse off financially than when he got elected.

 

I'm of a mind that once you are in public office, you are allowed to own no stocks, no stakes in companies. And are barred from working in an industry you had oversight of after leaving office for several years. Too many congressmen make laws and policy on how well it will benefit themselves.

 

We also need 100% transparency on political donations. I'm talking every single dollar, none of this under $10k garbage.

[knapplc]

Members of Congress have good health insurance by any standard, but it’s not free and not reserved only for them – and it’s not government insurance. House and Senate members are allowed to purchase private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million other federal employees, retirees and their families.

 

It’s not a "single-payer" system where the government acts as the one and only health insurance company. As President Bush’s chief of personnel Kay Coles James said in 2003, while lecturing at the conservative Heritage Foundation, "the FEHB program is not centralized, government-run health care." It has drawn praise both from conservatives and liberals, including President Obama, who held it up as a model for his own health care proposals.

 

According to the Congressional Research Service, the FEHBP offers about 300 different private health care plans, including five government-wide, fee-for-service plans and many regional health maintenance organization (HMO) plans, plus high-deductible, tax-advantaged plans. All plans cover hospital, surgical and physician services, and mental health services, prescription drugs and "catastrophic" coverage against very large medical expenses. There are no waiting periods for coverage when new employees are hired, and there are no exclusions for preexisting conditions. The FEHBP negotiates contracts annually with all insurance companies who wish to participate. There is plenty of competition for the business; FEHBP is the largest employer-sponsored health plan in the U.S.

 

Those who don’t like their coverage may switch to another plan during a yearly "open season" period. To help with the choices, FEHBP conducts an annual "satisfaction survey" of each plan with more than 500 members and publishes the results.

 

Like other large employers, the government pays a large share of the cost of coverage. On average, the government pays 72 percent of the premiums for its workers, up to a maximum of 75 percent depending on the policy chosen. For example, the popular Blue Cross and Blue Shield standard fee-for-service family plan carries a total premium of $1,120.47 per month, of which the beneficiary pays $356.59. Washington, D.C.-based employees who prefer an HMO option might choose the Kaiser standard family plan. It carries a total premium of $629.46 per month, of which the employee pays only $157.36.

 

LINK