Mitt Romney is a Flip-Flopper

Then you admire President Bush for his consistency. Good.

Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Sunday, December 16, 2007Then you admire President Bush for his consistency. Good.

I might if he were consistently correct. However since he and his policies always fall short, he is not one to admire!

so i guess the one you admire never did a thing without a poll.

The hypocrisy from gene is simply amazing.

Gene, tell us when you will start writing about someone like Hillary who "courts" people based on what they want to hear?

Gene, tell us when you will start writing about someone like Hillary who "courts" people based on what they want to hear?

I would lump her with the GOP Candidates. I would like to see Edwards or Obama or even Biden. They have been telling us we must change to solve the issues facing us!

want to increase spending. this is the same old same old.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Monday, December 17, 2007 Edwards or Obama want to increase spending. this is the same old same old.

They will produce the change people want. They will increase taxes on the upper income and give tax cuts to the middle income Americans. They will push health care. They will move on energy changes. That will sell in November 2008! They will also get our troops out of Iraq which again will sell well in November 2008! They are more in line with the changes people want. The majority do not want another 4 years of policies that look like the Bush policies!

What about the people who don't want tax increases? What they want doesn't count?

you mean the energy changes that they are blocking right now.

Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Monday, December 17, 2007 They will produce the change people want. What about the people who don't want tax increases? What they want doesn't count?

They will have to accept what the majority wants and will see how the majority has felt during the past 7 years! The difference will be that this time the policies will agree with the majority and help the middle class not the wealthy! Edwards and Obama have also made some specific suggestions to fund Social Security which the vast majority want done! Edwards has suggested lifting the income cap for Social Security Taxes like Medicare.

you mean the energy changes that they are blocking right now.

It is the GOP in the Senate that is blocking the energy bill that passed the House!

You don't know what people want.  Edwards and Obama are floppers too.

The only thing important to gene is taxing successful Americans and employers.

become lower class

Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 help the middle class become lower class

The Democrats will help more people into the middle class and move the poor toward the middle class. The wealthy will still be wealthy just like they were during the 1990's. The majority will benefit and the wealthy will sill be doing just fine!

The only thing important to gene is taxing successful Americans and employers.

The important thing is to have policies that benefit the all Americans not just wealthy Americans!

Cute. Real cute. So you agree, the solution to health care is to make criminals out of Americans who don't have it?

Wait a second. You keep insisting you're not in favor of increasing taxes, you just want to "roll back".

Ironic, on an article talking about "flipflops" of a Presidential candidate!

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 They will increase taxes on the upper income Wait a second. You keep insisting you're not in favor of increasing taxes, you just want to "roll back".Ironic, on an article talking about "flipflops" of a Presidential candidate!

I have always favored returning to the tax rates in effect during the 1990's for then wealthy. It is people on this Blog site that insist that is a TAX INCREASE. I am just accepting your terminology!

lets see if you return to the 1990 tax rates. then people will be paying higher taxes than they are now. but that isn't a tax increase.

Nice spin, but let's look at the facts:

If you pay x dollars in taxes in 2007, and you pay x + 1 dollars, that is a tax increase.

It's spin to call it anything else.

I was just interested in your change in terminology. Ultimately, you know it's an increase, you just don't want to say it.

I was just interested in your change in terminology. Ultimately, you know it's an increase, you just don't want to say it.

I want to increase taxes on the wealthy for this reason-- The 2001 tax cuts were justified by the $5.6 Trillion Surplus that Bush said we had to return to the tax payers. If there had been such a Surplus that argument made sense. The problem is there was NO SURPLUS and the justification for the Bush Tax Cuts did not exist. Both Greenspan and O'Neil told Bush that his tax cuts should be TIED to the surplus. If it existed as Bush claimed fine. If it fell short the tax cuts would be phased out. Guess what - There was not ONE CENT of a Surplus and the tax cuts should NEVER have taken place. TIME TO FIX THAT MISTAKE! HOW do you answer that?

You KNOW how I answer that. Which is, incidentally, not how the GOP does. Cut spending!

You and I agree on one key point, Col, and I think it's fair to acknowledge that. We agree the government should not spend more than it earns. The difference is, you see the solution as raising taxes, I see it as cutting spending.

Democrats aren't going to "help" anyone move into a class.  People in this country decide their own incomes and how they live.  NOTHING democrats will do will help anyone with their lives.  Why do you insist that democrats can somehow change your income so much that?




It is a tax increase if you raise taxes, no matter how you spin it.  Your solution to everything is more money, higher taxes, and more social programs.  How ridiculous!

in fact gene. the welfare system was designed, by the so called for the poor party, the democrats to keep them in their place.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 HOW do you answer that? You KNOW how I answer that. Which is, incidentally, not how the GOP does. Cut spending!

That is not the question. The Bush Tax cuts were justified on a Surplus that did not exist. Thus, they should be reversed! Spending should also be looked at but as I have documented we can not solve the fiscal problems with just spending cuts! WE WILL NEED both SPENDING CUTS AND ADDED TAX REVENUE TO BOTH BALANCE THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND repay THE DEBT!

You and I agree on one key point, Col, and I think it's fair to acknowledge that. We agree the government should not spend more than it earns. The difference is, you see the solution as raising taxes, I see it as cutting spending.

When Congress sets the spending, even though not all agree, they MUST set tax Revenue to equal that approved spending! If Congress says that is what we believe should be spent, they have the responsibility to insure the tax revenue is equal to the approved spending. The GOP controlled Congress agreed on a spending level and then IGNORED how they would pay for it. The added cost of the Iraq war is a perfect example-- We have spent $800 Billion on that war and did not increase the tax revenue to pay for that added cost. WHY?

The question was, how do I answer that? The answer I give is spending cuts.

I really wish you would stop "shouting" at me when I concede a key point of yours. It's poor form.



I disagree. IF we need additional tax revenue AFTER spending cuts are implemented, then and ONLY then should we even THINK about raising taxes, and yes, I agree, IF that becomes necessary, the wealthy should pay more than the poor or middle class.

But I don't agree it would be necessary.