Will Romney help to fight ‘prairie fire of debt’?

ap-wallow-june-11-burnout-bd_20110611133412_640_480

“When the men and women who settled the Iowa prairie saw a fire in the distance, they didn’t look around for someone else to save them or go back to sleep hoping the wind might blow another direction. They knew that their survival was up to them. A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation and every day we fail to act that fire gets closer to the homes and children we love.”

– Mitt Romney, campaigning in Iowa Tuesday

So I have a few questions:

Would Mitt Romney — he with $250 million in estimated wealth, the $100 million trust fund set aside for his sons and the $21 million in investment income last year alone — accept paying higher taxes as just PART of a larger national effort to stop this “prairie fire of debt” that threatens our nation’s survival?

Of course, nobody expects them to stop the fire on their own. They’re going to need a lot of help, and government spending is of course going to have to be cut. But given the apparent severity of this crisis, surely the most affluent — patriotic Americans such as Romney who are paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than many of their fellow citizens — should be willing to pitch in and help.

Or would that be too much to ask?

Yes, I know I’m being impertinent. I know that we’re not supposed to talk about such things in public. But still — is this prairie fire a problem that the poor and middle class are going to have to handle on their own, through increased sacrifice and adversity, while Romney and others cheer them on from the rear?

For example, we already know that health insurance for poor children, nutrition support for low-income families and tuition aid for college students as well as many other programs are being targeted by Republicans for cutbacks. Those vulnerable populations are going to be forced to “take a haircut” on this deal, as Romney and his friends in the investment community like to put it.

But is this sacrifice going to be shared, and if so how? What exactly do Romney and others in his tax bracket intend to contribute to this fight? Given the gravity of the situation, would a return to the tax rates paid during the Clinton administration be too outlandish a request of our most prosperous citizens?

It would?

OK then, how about this:

With the United States already spending 50 percent more on its military than the next nine nations combined, Romney has promised to increase defense spending significantly and add 100,000 active-duty personnel should he take office.

Won’t that just add fuel to “this debt and spending inferno” as it draws “closer to the homes and children we love”? Or is there some kind of magic by which defense spending adds nothing to the inferno, while Medicare and Social Security do?

Or am I missing something?

– Jay Bookman

398 comments Add your comment

Brosephus™

May 16th, 2012
9:02 am

Romney obviously doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Either that, or he things the average American is completely clueless. He’s gonna Etch-A-Sketch this entire campaign season. At one point, I thought he would have been a decent candidate. Now, I know what it means to build your house on quicksand, and that’s what the GOP has done.

Lord Help Us

May 16th, 2012
9:03 am

The rhetoric SCREAMS about the deficit apocalypse and the policy exacerbates the deficit…

And the Tea Party laps it up…

ty webb

May 16th, 2012
9:03 am

“patriotic Americans such as Romney who are paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than many of their fellow citizens — should be willing to pitch in and help”

actually Romney is paying a higher effective rate than MOST(I usually don’t all caps for emphasis, but this one time, it’s warranted) of his fellow citizens.

Lord Help Us

May 16th, 2012
9:06 am

‘am I missing something?’

Yes, you are missing the cognitive disconnect necessary to listen to this crap and swallow it hook, line and sinker…

Junior Samples

May 16th, 2012
9:06 am

Oh Jay, you know defense spending doesn’t count…

ty webb

May 16th, 2012
9:06 am

“…or he things(sic) the average American is completely clueless.”

he’d be right, if he thought that.

Normal Free...And liking it!

May 16th, 2012
9:07 am

I’ll agree that Mitt IS clueless, but he is also typical “Rich Guy”. He has no empathy for those beneath his class. Let the working class eat cake, let the working class’s children fight wars,
let the working class make all the sacrifice. He doesn’t care a long as he and his kind keep theirs. Put out a fire? Hell, he wouldn’t even lend you a hose…

Thomas Heyward Jr.

May 16th, 2012
9:11 am

John Kerry Jr aka Romney will use your wealth to fight the prairie fire.
Ditto Obama aka Bush the third.
.
Its what statists do.
.
The funny thing is……..the prairie fire is only threatening their dreams.
Not ours.
Except if you are a Romney/Obama supporter.
In that case………..you should be prepared to sacrifice.

JamVet

May 16th, 2012
9:11 am

Simply put, Mitt Romney is a very dangerous man to all working class American families, in the worst tradition of Ronald Reagan, William Clinton and George W. Bush.

If you value the lives and futures of your children and grandchildren, I say forcefully to not vote for him or the other members of these criminal cults, because as Jay notes, they will have NO part in ANY shared sacrifice.

They never have and they never will.

But YOU AND I will have a HUGE part in that sacrifice.

As we always have and always will…

TaxPayer

May 16th, 2012
9:12 am

After reviewing Romney’s speech on the debt, I found it lacking only one small item — facts. Damn! Romney really IS a Republican.

Paul

May 16th, 2012
9:13 am

“is there some kind of magic by which defense spending adds nothing to the inferno, while Medicare and Social Security do? ”

Magic. That’s gotta be it. Republicans believe in magic.

There will be stand-alone explanations about why Medicare needs to be cut and Defense increased. But it’s the same mindset that rules the current budget process: items are looked at in isolation from everything else and there isn’t an integrated view. So they can blithely dismiss Medicare cuts with ‘too expensive” and call for higher Defense spending with “we need to be stronger.”

From below:

here is just so much I do not understand.

Like how the conservative House Republicans can be for reduced government spending, abiding by deficit reduction plans, against earmarks, against special interest spending and against stimulus-like spending

Yet they pass a Defense Authorization Bill that adds $8 Billion to what the military has asked for, keeps the military from retiring old aircraft they don’t need, forces them to keep using weapons that are more expensive that others, forces them to build a new installation the military says is unnecessary…. and it goes on and on?

So House Republicans are adding $8 billion to keep and create jobs and spend money on stuff we don’t need and they promise to spend 15 times that amount if they take the White House?

I’m all ears and ready to be educated.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/05/15/3962982/white-house-threatens-veto-of.html

Brosephus™

May 16th, 2012
9:14 am

Will Romney help to fight ‘prairie fire of debt’?

To answer your question, he’ll probably co-sign what the GOP members of Congress are already trying to push. Their goals is to extract more and more from fed employees until there’s nothing left. If you wanna talk about fighting the debt, Congress has already put fed employees on the line for at least $75 Billion over the next 10 years. At the same time, they haven’t put themselves on the line for a single penny. I don’t usually get into the “class warfare”, but when you’re taking from those in the middle class while leaving the upper class alone, that reeks of targeting.

I don’t think Romney has the spine to stand up to the far-right if he’s elected. I don’t see how his policies would differ from those amongst the most extreme in his party. If he can’t stand up to his own party in the selection of campaign staffers, how will he find the testicular fortitude to stand up for something even more important?

ty

Thanks for catching my spelling error.. :oops: However, I’d disagree in that the average American is not clueless. I’d go with disinterested or disconnected.

Gm

May 16th, 2012
9:15 am

How in the world can middle class conservatives and lower class conservative vote for this rich prink? and really think he cares about there interest and concerns as regular Americans.

If this man is elected he will destroy middle class America, while his rich CEO friends will rake in millions off the sweat of the working people, conservatives can not be this stupid”””

Lord Help Us

May 16th, 2012
9:15 am

Remove the Bush tax cuts, two unfunded and horribly executed wars and the big investment banks gambling our economy (and losing) and we are in good shape.

Pity that the policy that led to these debacles is conveniently forgotten by the GOP.

Sick, misguided and/or fools…

JKL2

May 16th, 2012
9:16 am

-“When the men and women who settled the Iowa prairie saw a fire in the distance, they didn’t look around for someone else to save them or go back to sleep hoping the wind might blow another direction.

So they were obviously Republicans.

Mr. Snarky

May 16th, 2012
9:17 am

Jay, don’t you know that defense spending doesn’t count? Clearly you haven’t been keeping up with the repub talking points.

Junior Samples

May 16th, 2012
9:18 am

But, if they are so gung ho about spending on the military, then how about changing how it’s being spent? It’s known that the military is one of the leading players in alternative fuels. Even they don’t want to be hampered by their fuel being sourced from the countries that want to do us harm. So how about we bring our soldiers home, and put more of them to work on research in this arena?

It’s still under the name of national defense. If we no longer need to meddle in oil producing countries that don’t like us, we can leave them alone and do more to protect our shores, and innovate newer technologies to propel us into a more prosperous nation.

Mr. Snarky

May 16th, 2012
9:19 am

Left out from the speech: “and by ‘We’, of course, I mean ‘you’”

Soothsayer

May 16th, 2012
9:19 am

Jay, your mistake is trying to apply logic to politics during an election year.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

May 16th, 2012
9:20 am

“Left out from the speech: “and by ‘We’, of course, I mean ‘you’””

yeppers.

the Mittens Romney Presidency … Ask not what your country can do for you … ask what you can do for me.

Lord Help Us

May 16th, 2012
9:21 am

Paul

May 16th, 2012
9:21 am

Morning, Brosephus

“Romney obviously doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.”

There was an interesting exchange on the Morning Joe show on MSNBC a few days back. It was mostly the liberal contributors who got consensus on the idea Romney’s more a pragmatist, doesn’t have an overriding core that drives everything. So he comes into the primaries needing to prove himself and out-con the conservatives, which leads to his very questionable pronouncements like “Russia’s our biggest threat.” They then spoke about how he’s more in the Jimmy Carter mold (an interesting comparison, yes?) in that he’s data-driven, sees a problem and looks for the most pragmatic solution. Pretty much concluded by saying we’re looking at one Romney on the campaign trail and would very likely see, based upon Bain and the Olympics and Massachusetts, quite another Romney.

Part of the discussion too, was which group holds the most influence over him? Thought there was an inner circle and an inner-inner circle. Would he be co-opted by the neocons who Cheney adopted? Or not? Because now they can’t really tell who he’s listening to for anything other than what to say sat the next campaign venue.

It was an interesting perspective.

JKL2

May 16th, 2012
9:22 am

Jay- accept paying higher taxes as just PART of a larger national effort to stop this “prairie fire of debt” that threatens our nation’s survival?

Can I get more inofrmation on your “wealth tax” program? I understand you’re all for redistribution of wealth. I’ve just never heard anything about this wealth tax.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

May 16th, 2012
9:22 am

based on what the Ryan budget does NOT do…and what is DOES do

looks to me like Romney is planning to fight fire with gasoline.

(Has anybody else noticed he isn’t the brightest bulb in the pack)

Brosephus™

May 16th, 2012
9:23 am

“So they were obviously Republicans survivalists.”

I seriously doubt that political affiliation came to mind when it was time for them to save their ass. That’s just my take. Some people could make the birth of Jesus Christ a political event… :roll:

saywhat?

May 16th, 2012
9:24 am

JKL2

May 16th, 2012
9:16 am
-“When the men and women who settled the Iowa prairie saw a fire in the distance, they didn’t look around for someone else to save them or go back to sleep hoping the wind might blow another direction.

“So they were obviously Republicans.”
——————————————————————–
Really? I must have missed the part where they go out and douse the fire with gasoline, then blame the poor for the increased damage..

Paul

May 16th, 2012
9:25 am

Junior Samples

“It’s known that the military is one of the leading players in alternative fuels. Even they don’t want to be hampered by their fuel being sourced from the countries that want to do us harm. So how about we bring our soldiers home, and put more of them to work on research in this arena? ”

The House Republican Defense Authorization Bill specifically restricts biofuels use.

Brosephus™

May 16th, 2012
9:25 am

Paul

That’s what worries me about Romney. If he’s elected due to influence from the far-Right, I don’t think he has the fight in him to not bend to their wishes as a return favor.

Common Sense

May 16th, 2012
9:26 am

“But is this sacrifice going to be shared, and if so how? What exactly do Romney and others in his tax bracket intend to contribute to this fight? ”

Why is it so difficult for you to say ALL brackets? Have you sworn some oath to only tax the wealthy?

Exactly how is this sacrifice shared under your constant demand from the wealthy.

And how exactly is it sacrifice to expect those that use the most to pay for what they use?

JF McNamara

May 16th, 2012
9:26 am

Jay,

He’s not only on record to increase the size of the military, he’s also on record that he will CUT taxes. That’s not water in his hands, It’s gasoline!

Lord Help Us

May 16th, 2012
9:27 am

On a positive note…

I am actually relieved (to some extent) that we are having this discussion about Romney and not Cain, Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry, et al…

Common Sense

May 16th, 2012
9:30 am

When Bookman goes to dinner with friends, is the portion of the bill expected to be paid decided by % of income?

Paul

May 16th, 2012
9:30 am

Brosephus

Ironic, isn’t it?

While there are voters who may have misgivings about Romney based on what he’s said, they’ll vote for him because he isn’t Obama.

They’ll vote for Romney because they Hope he’ll Change.

gadem

May 16th, 2012
9:32 am

Yes Jay you are missing something. You are missing your tin foil hat and with your Bible in your right hand while you are draped in Old Glory. That is what makes you patriotic. Making sacrifices toward the national debt does not make you patriotic. Do as I say, not as I do…

gadem

May 16th, 2012
9:33 am

Common Sense you are equating dinner with the National Debt? I think we can all agree that that is a dumb analogy.

St Simons - he-ne-ha

May 16th, 2012
9:33 am

A Bain vulture capitalist lecturing on debt.

I swear, this campaign out to have a laugh track.
That no-gene-for-irony is gonna be the end of em.

Paul

May 16th, 2012
9:33 am

Common Sense

“And how exactly is it sacrifice to expect those that use the most to pay for what they use?”

So you’re advocating a new philosophy to direct our federal income tax system?

At no time has our income tax system been based on the principle “whoever uses the most pays the most.”

How would you compute that?

Would you say “We fought a couple of wars in Iran to keep the oil lanes open. The first entity this benefits is the private oil companies. Therefore, their corporate income tax rate should be increased to provide an additional one trillion dollars in revenue”?

JohnnyReb

May 16th, 2012
9:35 am

This one is a Moonbat pity party.

Even Bill Clinton has most recently stated taxing the rich won’t fix the problem and that Obama should be pushing entitlement cuts via Simpson-Bowles.

Why doesn’t he? Too stiff a medicine for his base, so he ignores it and divides the country as does this piece from Jay.

Mary Elizabeth

May 16th, 2012
9:35 am

We must never forget that ideological Republicans created the high deficit, to start with, in order to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and other governmental programs – which have aided the working and middle classes in their upward mobility.

The “economic game” has been rigged against the middle/working classes for decades. Of course, Mitt Romney will not pay more in taxes. Of course, Republicans will not agree to go back to Clinton’s tax rates. The idea is to “starve the beast of government” in order to end the so-called “entitlements,” and that has been their game plan all along. The word “entitlement,” itself, has been used as a propaganda term, and many have bought into the negative connotations of that propaganda term, to their own detriment.

Watch this video clip regarding the differences between public morality and private morality, as seen through Romney’s eyes, as well as through the eyes of those who share his vision.

http://marketplayground.com/2012/05/15/robert-reich-mitt-romney-has-public-and-private-morality-upside-down-video/

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

May 16th, 2012
9:35 am

Adam

May 16th, 2012
9:35 am

Jay: Did you say you have questions for Mitt Romney? YOU’RE DIVISIVE! YOU’RE DISTRACTING FROM THE REAL ISSUES!

Just thought I’d get those ridiculous canned non-answer responses out of the way early.

Brosephus™

May 16th, 2012
9:36 am

They’ll vote for Romney because they Hope he’ll Change.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I pay close attention to what is said, but I pay even more attention to who the advisors are. You can kinda guess where a person’s going to go, as an elected official, when you know where the advice is coming from. This is one election where I see that most people will vote against the candidate they don’t want in office.

TaxPayer

May 16th, 2012
9:36 am

Okay. How many are in favor of extending the Bush tax cut that allows a couple filing a joint return and taking the standard deduction to make over $85,000 per year in qualifying dividends and capital gains while paying ZERO payroll or federal income taxes on it?

Now. How many think that people working minimum wage jobs and paying payroll taxes on every penny should have their future social security and Medicare benefits eliminated and their home mortgage deductions eliminated and their child tax credits eliminated, etc., so they can start to pay their fair share? Come on now. Don’t be shy.

Paul

May 16th, 2012
9:36 am

Common Sense

You going to exempt people from paying property taxes if they don’t have kids in school?

You going to exempt Person A from paying any Social Security or Medicare taxes because they don’t use either?

Butch Cassidy

May 16th, 2012
9:36 am

Any reason why we can’t take the following steps:

1. Allow tax rates to re-set to Pre – Bush levels across the board

2. Eliminate the EITC ( If you are below the poverty threshold, you get to keep 100% of your income, but you DO NOT get a tax return for taxes not paid)

3.Cut 10% from ALL Federal spending

Or, does that not make enough sense?

JKL2

May 16th, 2012
9:36 am

Paul- So House Republicans are adding $8 billion to keep and create jobs

$8B for 100k jobs sounds like a bargain since obama spent $1 trillion and has nothing to show for it.

Now back to the Democrat’s debt reduction program…

bwahahahahahahaha

Lord Help Us

May 16th, 2012
9:37 am

‘This one is a Moonbat pity party.’

Well, then…do you think Romney’s ‘plan’ (sans details) will lower the deficit?

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

May 16th, 2012
9:37 am

“Some people could make the birth of Jesus Christ a political event…”

um.

I think you’ve missed the memo …

some people already HAVE …

JamVet

May 16th, 2012
9:37 am

JKL2, you have never even been to Iowa, have you?

You know NOTHING about the people, history or culture there.

But like a typical fake conservative, you write as if you do have a clue.

Adam

May 16th, 2012
9:37 am

Jay: Am I missing something?

I don’t think you’re missing this, but you forgot to mention that Republicans don’t ACTUALLY care about the debt. They want to spend on what they want to spend on, and cut everything else. Period. Talking about the debt is the real distraction – a distraction from their actual policy history and goals.

rightwing troll

May 16th, 2012
9:38 am

“Keep your government hands off my Medicare!”

- Some idiot at a Tea bagging rally

Paul

May 16th, 2012
9:38 am

St Simons

“A Bain vulture capitalist lecturing on debt.:

Careful. Couple nights ago Pres Obama was having dinner at the home of the head of Blackstone – a private equity firm twice the size of Bain. Bunch of other venture capitalists were there. Pres Obama wasn’t there just to eat – he wanted their $$$$ and he got them.

JohnnyReb

May 16th, 2012
9:39 am

“…do you think Romney’s ‘plan’ (sans details) will lower the deficit?”

I sure hope so. We know Obama’s doesn’t.

rightwing troll

May 16th, 2012
9:39 am

“Deficits don’t matter”
-Darth Cheney

Adam

May 16th, 2012
9:40 am

They’ll vote for Romney because they Hope he’ll Change.

Now THAT makes my month :D

rightwing troll

May 16th, 2012
9:40 am

“Go F$%k yourself”
-Darth Cheney

JKL2

May 16th, 2012
9:40 am

Gm- vote for this rich prink? and really think he cares about there interest and concerns as regular Americans.

obama says,”What?”

MoveOn.ogr, nothing to see here…

TaxPayer

May 16th, 2012
9:41 am

$8B for 100k jobs sounds like a bargain since obama spent $1 trillion and has nothing to show for it.

And JKL2’s “facts” must come from the same source and Mitt’s. :roll:

rightwing troll

May 16th, 2012
9:41 am

“I’m not worried about the poor”
-Mittens

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

May 16th, 2012
9:41 am

1) “Yes, I know I’m being impertinent.”

No ………….. you are being totally biased.

2) “With the United States already spending 50 percent more on its military than the next nine nations combined, Romney has promised to increase defense spending significantly and add 100,000 active-duty personnel should he take office.

Won’t that just add fuel to “this debt and spending inferno” as it draws “closer to the homes and children we love”? Or is there some kind of magic by which defense spending adds nothing to the inferno, while Medicare and Social Security do?”

The “magic” will be ending a couple of Cabinet Level Departments !

rightwing troll

May 16th, 2012
9:41 am

“I saved the American auto industry”
-Mittens

Adam

May 16th, 2012
9:42 am

JohnnyReb: “…do you think Romney’s ‘plan’ (sans details) will lower the deficit?”

I sure hope so

Mark JohnnyReb down as voting for “Hope.”

Joseph

May 16th, 2012
9:42 am

Lord Help Us

May 16th, 2012
9:43 am

‘I sure hope so’

You can join Jessie in a chorus of, ‘Keep Hope Alive!’

Of course, you could use some elementary math, along with the analysis of several bipartisan economic groups and see that it won’t…

Adam

May 16th, 2012
9:43 am

The “magic” will be ending a couple of Cabinet Level Departments !

Yeah… that’ll take care of over 100k additional servicepeople’s salaries and associated costs….

Paul

May 16th, 2012
9:43 am

JKL2

“$8B for 100k jobs sounds like a bargain since obama spent $1 trillion and has nothing to show for it. ”

Your logic is.as impressive as is your command of the facts.

Joseph

May 16th, 2012
9:44 am

The dems and their leaders show the most obvious hate…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYwkNCwADzQ&feature=youtu.be

rightwing troll

May 16th, 2012
9:44 am

“The “magic” will be ending a couple of Cabinet Level Departments !”

That’s called an offset, a wash, a zero sum.

If we are to offset the expected savings from closing a couple Cabinet Level Departments by increasing Military spending, where is the deficit reduction?

Mitt Zombie

May 16th, 2012
9:44 am

I love it when conservatives state that raising taxes alone will not fix the debt so let’s move on, and then in the next conversation they get wrapped around the axle on minor items like Acorn, National Endowment of the Arts, and Public Broadcasting.

Jay clearly stated that other changes, including cuts would be necessary, but we clearly can’t support the government infrastructure a majority of Americans desire at our current tax rates.

Brosephus™

May 16th, 2012
9:44 am

USinner

My courier service got cancelled, so I haven’t received a memo in a while. They cut my service to pay for those damned pelican scrubbers….. :mad:

Butch Cassidy

May 16th, 2012
9:45 am

rightwing troll – ““I saved the American auto industry”
-Mittens”

You missed the rest of the qoute – “I saved the American auto industry…by doing nothing, staying out of the way and letting the people in charge who actually had the information needed to make critical decisions take care of the problem, thereby allowing the industry to survive.”

Yay Mitt, what a leader! :)

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

May 16th, 2012
9:45 am

P.S.

Yesterday Jay you posted a plane that wasn’t a “fighter” aircraft.

The above is not a “prairie fire”. Look at all the trees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie

Joseph

May 16th, 2012
9:47 am

Joseph

May 16th, 2012
9:48 am

Look at the beating Obama will take in NC… Thanks for coming out of closet Pres… You made your defeat so much easier…http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2012_north_carolina_president

TaxPayer

May 16th, 2012
9:49 am

The fed should cut the portion of that 105 billion in education spending that was directed toward Republicans. It clearly was wasted. They cannot even do math!

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

May 16th, 2012
9:49 am

Adam:

If a Department is unnecessary or duplicious …………… that’s what needs to be done.

rightwing troll:

It will help ! “For 2006, the ED discretionary budget was $56 billion and the mandatory budget contained $23.4 billion. As of 2011, the discretionary budget is $69.9 billion.”

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

May 16th, 2012
9:50 am

“They cut my service to pay for those damned pelican scrubbers….”

DAMN!!!

“The above is not a “prairie fire”. Look at all the trees.”

talk about missing the forest for the …

JKL2

May 16th, 2012
9:50 am

mary elizabeth- Of course, Mitt Romney will not pay more in taxes

Since you missed it from last night, I’ll give you a replay. Here’s a fine example of one of your liberal 1%’s reaction to the liberal utopia becoming a reality: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/see-will-smiths-shocked-reaction-to-frances-proposed-75-tax-rate-after-just-advocating-for-higher-taxes-in-u-s/

Be careful what you wish for…

Joseph

May 16th, 2012
9:50 am

Junior Samples

May 16th, 2012
9:51 am

Paul,

I know, right? The House Republican Defense Authorization Bill specifically restricts biofuels under the guise of “it’s too expensive (at the moment)”. The Navy wants to pilot a program to see if biofuels might work for an entire fleet, and congress folds under the pressure of oil lobbyists.
And that’s keeping us safe… Well, it’s keeping the oil companies safe, but they’re not concerned about our safety, only their profit margins and our subsidies.

So what costs more? Running a fleet on biofuel, or protecting the oil companies supply from those same countries that we’re fighting? Brilliant…

Common Sense

May 16th, 2012
9:51 am

Gadem,

Agree with what you want. Singling out individuals to pay for national debt accumulated on everyone’s behalf has NEVER been agreed to in these United States.

Your unwillingness to pay your share is not my responsibility.

Nor is it Romney’s.

rightwing troll

May 16th, 2012
9:51 am

Scout,
As some of you chest pounders here like to point out when presented with the perceived boost in revenue that might come from a marginal increase in the top tax rate… “chump change”…

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

May 16th, 2012
9:52 am

Let’s look at the bookends of the last Republican administration: 9/11 and financial meltdown.

Yeah we need to elect another Republican in the White House.

Mitt Zombie

May 16th, 2012
9:53 am

Conservative straw man alert!!!!!!!……Use Will Smith’s hesitancy to endorse France’s 75% tax rates to argue against moving US top rate from 35% to 39.5%.

stands for decibels

May 16th, 2012
9:53 am

Republicans don’t ACTUALLY care about the debt.

They care enough about it to pretend that it’s all the half-Negro’s doing.

Think I’m kidding? Here’s Mittens, just yesterday:

“America counted on President Obama to rescue the economy, tame the deficit and help create jobs. Instead, he bailed out the public sector, gave billions of your dollars to the companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined.”

rightwing troll

May 16th, 2012
9:53 am

So… ahhhh… I missed something. Where and when has ANYBODY proposed an increase of the top tax rates to 75% here in the USA?

Recon 0311 2533

May 16th, 2012
9:54 am

This left wing rhetoric won’t change Obama’s dismal record on the economy and our growing debt crises. And yes these will be campaign issues, it can be counted on. BTW…with Romney out ahead on who voters trust most to fix the economy by 10 percentage points, Obama and his campaign managers better come with far better plans than lets make wealthy American’s pay more income tax.

UNCLE SAMANTHA

May 16th, 2012
9:54 am

i will give jay credit for changing some verbage in his spin
he said “as well as many other programs are being targeted by Republicans for cutbacks”

key word CUTBACKS instead of cuts

jay, you are almost there with truth

democrats call are the only ones who can call an increase in spending a CUT………. what they dont

for example
spend $1 this year
plan to spend $1.25 next year
but then only spend $1.20 next year

democrats call that a cut when in actuality you have increased spending $.20
they call a increase a cut

fuzzy math

Generation$crewed

May 16th, 2012
9:54 am

Lord Help Us
May 16th, 2012
9:37 am

Better question: Has Obama’s policies increased or decreased the deficit?

But, but but……

Odd how some speak with apparent certainty about what one person would do, yet apparently ignore what another person has and continues to do.

Lord Help Us

May 16th, 2012
9:55 am

‘So… ahhhh… I missed something. Where and when has ANYBODY proposed an increase of the top tax rates to 75% here in the USA?’

It’s ‘EuroCreep’…similar to ‘ShariaCreep’ and equally as stupid…

godless heathen

May 16th, 2012
9:56 am

“If this man is elected he will destroy middle class America, while his rich CEO friends will rake in millions off the sweat of the working people, conservatives can not be this stupid”””

OMFG. Looks like the CEOs been doing pretty well under the current administration.

Erwin's cat

May 16th, 2012
9:57 am

All conjecture about what Mitt might or might not do…let’s talk about what has already been done or not done and by who before we start to imagine what the next president elect :D might do

detritusUSA

May 16th, 2012
9:57 am

No, the average American voter is not clueless or disinterested. We know what the issues are and what the candidates stand for. However, we have also learned that no matter who we vote for, nothing changes for us. The rich get richer, and we continue to get poorer.

I’ve read that members of the old Whig party referred to the great mass of Americans as “the beast”. It must have been true because most of us Americans are now being treated like a beast, useless and dangerous.

Republicans have historically been the party of the wealthy. Modern republicans are worse than their ancestors, just truly evil, and their conservative supporters are little better.

Lord Help Us

May 16th, 2012
9:57 am

‘Better question: Has Obama’s policies increased or decreased the deficit?’

Actually a slight increase over the policies (ie. tax cuts, wars) that were in place when he took office…

Paul

May 16th, 2012
9:58 am

Scout

“Yesterday Jay you posted a plane that wasn’t a “fighter” aircraft.”

I know you’ve spent a lot of time in a foxhole so you have this overarching perspective of how other services use the term ‘fighter”…

but referring to a two-person single or twin-engine aircraft used in an attack role to kill the enemy as a ‘fighter’ and those who fly them as ‘fighter pilots’ is the norm.

If you don’t believe me, just go to a gathering of ex-A-6 drivers or F-111 drivers and loudly tell them they aren’t ‘real’ fighter pilots.

Better have your foxhole close by -

Butch Cassidy

May 16th, 2012
9:58 am

Finn McCool – “Let’s look at the bookends of the last Republican administration: 9/11 and financial meltdown.”

Hey now, it wasn’t all bad. Afterall, we did have low unemployment and inflated housing costs due to shady financing and peoples ability to use their home as an ATM which in turn allowed the U.S. and much of the world to make questionable investments that weren’t even worth the paper they were written on.

Who wouldn’t want to go back to that? :)

curious

May 16th, 2012
9:58 am

Nobody, left or right, willing to sacrifice/contribute anything to solve this problem except “let the other side contribute”

We aren’t going to get there from here.

Hello, Greece.

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

May 16th, 2012
9:58 am

Ooops! How’s that gay marriage thing going El Jeffe ?

Headline: “POLL: NORTH CAROLINA: ROMNEY 51%, OBAMA 43%”

rightwing troll

May 16th, 2012
9:58 am

Scout,
That’s not to say we can’t eliminate a couple Cabinet Level departments… but as military brat who never went to a school for more than 3 years, I firmly believe the Dept of ED is necessary, bloated and top heavy to be sure. In the way of teaching and teachers, absolutely. Too many career admins and not enough quality teachers, for sure. But a national set of standards are more important than ever in our mobile society…

(ir)Rational

May 16th, 2012
9:59 am

My question, and I know I’ll just get, as they have been called by some here, canned non-response responses in answer, but I’ll ask anyway is: why should the people that have made their fortunes, typically risked everything in the process of making them, willingly give up a larger portion of their income/wealth when the people they’re giving the money to can’t seem to stop spending it more quickly than they’re able to collect it?