Letter: Obama defended the indefensible

As a life-long conservative Republican, I believe that President Barack Obama’s debate performance Wednesday night was respectable. There is no doubt that conservatives reading this are immediately skeptical of my claim of being a conservative, but please hear me out.

Conservatives, name anyone who could have done a better job of defending the president’s record over the last four years. The record is $6 trillion in new debt and unemployment barely below 8 percent despite this massive stimulus spending. Even with these abysmal numbers, he stood on his two feet and tried to defend it.

Where President Obama admittedly faltered in the debate is offering any remedy to this malaise. Mitt Romney had the hopeful remedies to pull us out of this economy, and that is why he won the debate and should win the election. If voters were truly informed and the press was unbiased, Romney would be ahead by 20 points or more.

I truly don’t think Obama has any idea how to fix this. This is evidenced by the fact that the budgets he has submitted have not received even one vote from a Democrat or Republican in the Senate.

Yes, Romney clearly won the debate. Obama did a respectable job of defending the indefensible. Romney gets my vote. Heck, Bernie Madoff would get my vote over Obama. Madoff only squandered $65 billion of innocent investors’ money (Source: Wikepedia bio on Madoff). Obama has squandered over $90 billion on green energy alone (Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov) and over $6 trillion in innocent taxpayers’ money.

Lloyd Ray

insurance representative

Gonzales

Comments

1) Comment by Dawson - 12/10/2012

Higher tax rates do not increase revenues because they shrink the tax base. Tax cuts increase revenues because they widen the tax base. Does history not matter in this debate? Remember, it is not the publics job to "fund the government" based on some budget the government determines but instead the governments job to function within the amount of funds the treasury is paid. The government works for the people, not the other way around.

2) Comment by nimby? - 12/10/2012

DMJ , if it makes you feel better you may call me a liar .

3) Comment by DMJ - 12/10/2012

Yep. False equivolence now rules the day. We even have two sets of facts. One's real and one is liberally biased, right? Ugh... Obama somehow found a way to make the IRS raise taxes only on Republicans. This is past dumb...

4) Comment by nimby? - 12/10/2012

DMJ , sorry but your facts and my books don't agree , I'm not the only one .

5) Comment by gvm - 12/10/2012

AInPVille: and if you look closely, you'll see that I said my information came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well (emphasis on "as well"). That was meant to convey that we're citing the same source. Regarding the massive number of jobs that sprang from the Bush Era tax cuts, the question was meant to be a rhetorical one. I knew you couldn't answer it because the data show that there was no massive decline in annual average unemployment rate during that time. The fact that it remained flat merely shows that, as I've said before, most employers chose to pocket the tax savings instead of using it for job creation. I suspect more of that if the faux "businessman" sneaks into the White House.

6) Comment by InPVille - 12/10/2012

@gvm: If you looked closely enough you saw the second link I posted contained the initials BLS. Guess what that stands for? Bureau of Labor Statistics - - - The Bush era tax cuts resulted in "X" number of jobs. Look up the rest of the formula yourself. You very well know that there is nowhere anyone keeps records specific enough to answer your post ending question. And the unemployment rate during the Bush years which was lower then then during the current administration had little to nothing to do with the rates of the last several years. For all the claims that we needed the stimulus spending to get the unemployment rate back to 6% or below, it has never come close to doing so.

7) Comment by InPVille - 12/10/2012

@postscript56: You may have something of a point about the 2000 election. Though stealing an election by one method or by another is still stealing an election. Not that Bush actually stole the election. As for the the Bush/Kerry race there were claims against the results in Ohio and about the Dibold Voting Machines. For Example: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm -[**]- Your strawman is burning here ". . .reducing taxes on the wealthy will result in a huge economic boom time. . ." I never claimed there changes in tax rates would lead to a huge economic boom. I've found links to government sources showing an increase in government revenue in years following tax rate reduction. My position is that whether or not a decrease in the tax rate will result in an increase in government revenue or a decrease in government revenue depends on how high the rates are. If the rates are already low, of course tax revenue will go down if there is a reduction. When President Kennedy successfully advocated for legislation that reduced the top marginal tax rate from around 90% to around 70% in 1964 government for 1964 was 116.82 in billions. (1965 116.21) (1966 130.84) (1967 148.82) (1968 152.97). So despite tax rate reductions, tax revenue increased and some people got to keep more of the money they earned. But the government spent more than it took in. The same thing happened with revenue and spending after the Reagan Tax cuts. You can find articles to support both sides of this topic. But the bottom line is that the numbers show that government revenues went up and not down after the tax cuts. It also shows the government tends to spend more money than it takes it no matter how much they get. My figures below which show the U.S. top decile already pay a larger percentage of taxes paid than elsewhere are also still on the table.

8) Comment by gvm - 11/10/2012

@InPVille: chortles and guffaws aside, I am absolutely making a complaint comparison as you call it. The GOP has expended a great amount of political capital pushing the lie that tax cuts for the "job creators" increases job creation. The statistics clearly show that just isn't so. My data comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics as well for the years 2001 thru 2009. The 5.2% figure is the average over the Bush 2 years. In any case, lower taxes do not mean more jobs. By the way, can you tell me how many jobs resulted directly from the Bush era tax cuts?

9) Comment by InPVille - 11/10/2012

@gvm: "Here's a statistic for you you to chew on: average annual unemployment remained essentially flat at approximately 5.2% during the Bush 2 years - i.e., no job growth. . ." -[**]- Are you seriously making a complaint comparison between an unemployment rate of 5.2% against the current unemployment rate of 7.8?! Chortles and Guffaws!!! I think one would have to conclude your argument can't be taken seriously. -[**]- The following link argues(as of 1999) that 4.5% unemployment would be FULL employment. A 5.2% number would be a whole lot closer to that number than the current 7.+ -[**]- Here are two sources I found for unemployment rates during Bush years - - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html (2001 4.7%) (2002 5.8%) (2003 6.0%) (2004 5.5%) (2005 5.1%) (2006 4.6%) (2007 5.8%) (2008 5.8). http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet - - Select the years 2001 to 2009 and the graph look close to the same to me. Where did you obtain your figure?

10) Comment by Triple - 11/10/2012

You mean inarticulate like Jim Clyburn, or integrity like Anthony Weiner, or honesty like Charlie Rangel.  You assume I have a party, but I do not.  "I will join no party that would have me as a member".  I voted Clinton once, I voted for John Breaux and held my nose, voted for Mary not Woody.  One of my issues is complete alliance by some because a candidate has a D or R behind their name. However,  I believe what Democrats have done to the impoverished in our country is reprehensible, creating a legacy of dependency to garner votes, to remain in power.  The predictions of Alexis de Tocqueville do indeed seem to be on the near horizon.  Peace.

11) Comment by gvm - 11/10/2012

@Triple: Not so. Twinkie, DMJ and other like-minded posters are private citizens, not members of Congress. Consequently, they are entitled to their own opinions. Legislators, on the other hand, must be held to a higher standard as I'm sure you would agree. I think it is a fact that, at least recently, the GOP has become infested with inarticulate and ignorant members - some of whom have made it to Washington. It's obvious that your party's stock started to plummet the moment they let the surviving dinosaurs from the Dixiecrats infiltrate the ranks. Outside of ignorance and arrogance, the only other attributes the GOP can boast of are: sterility and decay. I think it would be very nearly impossible for you to find a period, in your lifetime, where the level of dysfunction in one party exceeds that of today's GOP.

12) Comment by Triple - 11/10/2012

@GVM,  By your standards, Twinkie, DMJ and ilk are traitors, they have complete allegiance to their party.  Have you actually read the puke that Twinkie posts on these discussions?  Her comments are void of any intellectual honesty and hate is her motivation.   BTW, I too believe government has a role in the economy and in our lives, as enumerated in the constitution, the 10th amendment seems to be ignored in modern times.  Do you think the collective IQ is helped by Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, & John Conyers?  You think Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Barney Frank are big on compromise?  Get real pal, the democrats have complete losers in positions of power, but they were duly elected, the system we live in.  To suggest GOP candidates are less competent then the list of clowns on the left does not bode well of your reasoning.  Hypocrisy reeks of dead fish regardless of the banner one carries

13) Comment by gvm - 11/10/2012

@Whatnow: get your facts straight. I didn't say Social Security was a handout. But since you bring it up, would you be willing to see it reduced or give it up entirely if doing so would take the future burden off your grandchildren? And what does Rev. Wright have to do with anything? Race baiter and a liar? You mean like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Priebus, Paul, Santorum, Fox News, the Tea Party, and most of the GOP?

14) Comment by Whatnow - 11/10/2012

gvm, the difference is that Social Security is not a handout. We did pay into it, all of our lives. The government ruined it. And you just refuse to see the difference. And as far as Hurricane Issac? (http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans) ( http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/obama-fails-to-provide-aid-to-victims-of-hurricane-isaac-despite-2007-anti-bush-rhetoric-on-katrina-relief/) Now you want to talk about a hypocrite? I would also call him a race baiter and a liar.

15) Comment by gvm - 11/10/2012

It is simply amazing that most of President Obama's detractors are among the first ones looking for government help when things go wrong. Our esteemed governor wanted the Feds to pay 100% of the costs the state incurred in the run up to, and aftermath of, Hurricane Isaac. Such a request, coming from such a staunch conservative, doesn't make sense. Similarly, many the same folks whooping and howling about government handouts and entitlement spending, do so while waiting at the mailbox for their Social Security checks. I find such hypocrisy mind bending in its scope. There is not a single person in the US that has not benefited from some sort of government program, handout, hand up, subsidy or whatever else you want to call it, at some time or another. Likewise, there is not a single person in this country truly willing to give it up either - particularly those on the right. Perhaps the biggest frauds of all are those in government who constantly rail against government. Why is it that these folks can't seem to get enough of slopping at the public trough?

16) Comment by gvm - 11/10/2012

@Triple: legitimate opposition to some of the president's policies doesn't make GOP "lawmakers" traitors. But, blind allegiance to their party and a complete unwillingness to compromise does. The Tea Party backed members of Congress have made a mockery of what ought to be a respected institution. The collective IQ in Washington has been cut in half since these idiots invaded. Entry into the current GOP ranks demands that one be no higher than ninth-rate in intelligence, honesty and rectitude. Placing country over party is strictly verboten by the TP/GOP mob.

17) Comment by gvm - 11/10/2012

@InPville - Here's a statistic for you you to chew on: average annual unemployment remained essentially flat at approximately 5.2% during the Bush 2 years - i.e., no job growth. The highly touted tax cuts, which were supposed to unleash an avalanche of jobs - didn't. One must conclude that the policy failed. Why then, do you support a return to the same failed policy that helped bring about this mess in the first place?

18) Comment by The_Host - 11/10/2012

Oh I see we are going into debt because we aren't milking the cows as hard as we should be. It has nothing to do with drinking more milk than they make or taking luxurious baths in milk and wasting it by the tanker ship full. Or giving their milk away to other cows so they don't have to worry about making any milk for themselves. Someone is spending money correct? We are broke correct? DMJ when you run out of money what do you do? Just print more? Go steal some from someone on the street or what? Perhaps just maybe you don't spend more than you make in the first place. What kind of deficit spending and debts do you personally run up each year with absolutely no plan to ever stop or pay back what you have already spent?

19) Comment by DMJ - 11/10/2012

Nimby, income rates at the federal level haven't gone up for ANYONE since Obama took office. This is one of the reasons the debt keeps piling up...which you guys also blame Obama for. There was a tax credit that was part of the Stimulus (1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts) which expired last year. Could that be what you're thinking of? I guess we are on different ships. Come aboard the USS Reality, where we don't have to argue about facts.

20) Comment by Whatnow - 11/10/2012

Look up Steve Wynn... sitting on thumbs...

21) Comment by nimby? - 11/10/2012

I've talked with quite a few small business owners who like me have seen lower profits while the cost of doing business has increased more than inflation . our taxes have also increased over the last two years . we must be on a different ship ...

22) Comment by Triple - 11/10/2012

@GVM, "Just because I believe that government has a role to play in society hardly makes me a statist" and conversely disagreement with current administration policies does not make one a traitor. InPVille, good catch on the sophistry presented about statistical gimmicks, do not think the poster was trying to support your position. He also brought forward an argument about the middle class under the Bush administration, while the VP admitted the middle class has been buried under this administration. Cannot understand, now that we have a record to review, why this politician has such a devoted following.

23) Comment by DMJ - 11/10/2012

I have a prediction for after the election, no matter who wins: business people will hire the least amount of people needed to do the jobs needed to make their businesses succeed, because hiring more people than they need would cut in to their profits. They will pay those people as little as possible, just enough to keep them from quitting, because paying them more than they're worth would cut in to their profits. They may offer benefits; they may not. Most don't. If they don't have to, then they won't. They will try to make money no matter how much in taxes they have to pay afterward. This is how business always works regardless of who's in charge in government. The idea that businesses are sitting on their cash until January, when Mitt Romney will take over, at which point they'll start hiring again because then, and only then, the issue of taxes will be settled and we'll have certainty in the markets is ridiculous. Here's a fact: the economy is picking up. Admittedly, the recovery is not as robust as we'd all like, but we're climbing out of a pretty deep hole. And yes, we are climbing, not sinking. You don't fire the capitain after he righted the ship, do you?

24) Comment by nimby? - 11/10/2012

yes , a lot of people , investors , businessmen , those in the health care/insurance industry are waiting to see who is elected . this administration has back-loaded a number of items that will only commence after the election , after Jan. 1 . their decisions will depend on who is elected ...

25) Comment by DMJ - 11/10/2012

Ahh...so businesses are hiring not becaue of Obama's policies but in spite of them. Got it. It's like I've been saying....for Republicans, Obama is god in reverse- all of the blame, none of the credit. And I hate to break it to you, but the issue of taxes is never going to be "settled." Rates are going to go up...and then down... There is no such thing as certainty when it comes to business climate. And we've had the same rates for a decade now. Historically, taxes are as "settled" as they've ever been, yet businesses are supposedly waiting for a new president to start hiring? Please. Another adherent to the Mitt Romney school of economics. I think Mitt himself said it best, "My own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see — without actually doing anything — we'll actually get a boost in the economy." Everyone convinced? Me either.

26) Comment by agagent - 11/10/2012

Thank goodness his cap and trade tax failed in Congress. Also, thank goodness some businesses have overcome the roadblocks set in place by Obama policies and created a modest number of private sector jobs. Obama policies have hampered job creation and then he goes in front of the cameras and takes credit for the good work of others.

27) Comment by agagent - 11/10/2012

Obama affected jobs by rescinded drilling permits approved by the Bush administration. Many rigs left the Gulf when Obama extended his illegal drilling moratorium. He placed vast areas under federal control off limits to energy exploration and then took credit for an increase in energy production on state and private lands. He stopped the Keystone pipeline. He closed coal mines and power plants. Obamacare increases the cost of labor, and anyone paying for health insurance will pay more. He favors higher cost union labor on federal construction projects meaning there will be fewer, more costly, projects. His NLRB fights non-union jobs. Extending unemployment benefits to almost 2 years increases the cost of unemployment insurance and encourages some to stay home instead of accepting available jobs. Threatening higher taxes has caused many businesses sit on the sidelines until the issue is settled.

28) Comment by agagent - 11/10/2012

Jay Carney admitted the truth: “The White House does not create (private sector) jobs.” Government can only affect the conditions for job creation.

29) Comment by Duckyluve - 11/10/2012

Nobama was proven to be a joke during the debate. He is supposed to run the country but he cant talk without somebody telling him what to say. Wait till the liberals other hero (biden) proves how stupid he is tonight. The dems should be proud of dumb and dumber

30) Comment by Whatnow - 11/10/2012

Obama did not "inherit" the economy. He begged for it, campaigned for it, spent millions to acquire it, and promised to change it. He didn't. He later stated that he didn't realize how bad it was. Well, that just makes me wonder why didn't he know how bad it was and that he bit off more than he could chew. He just added gasoline to the fire. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbC6SowjwY) ``(http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226187/ego-and-mouth/thomas-sowell)

31) Comment by DMJ - 11/10/2012

Republicans find themselves in the peculiar position of routing for bad economic news so it'll hurt President Obama's re-election chances. Strange.

32) Comment by postscript56 - 11/10/2012

InPVille - I don't usually keep up a running commentary here, but when I logged on this morning and saw only yesterday's letters posted I spent a few minutes reading some comments - and so wanted to respond to you. First, the 2000 election was not a case of voter fraud. Those who claim Bush "stole" the election refer to the Supreme Court decision preventing Florida from recounting votes. There is no correlation between complaints of the 2000 election results and the current belief by right wing loonies of massive voter fraud. Second, whether you call it "trickle-down economics," "supply-side economics," or any other name it is still the same failed belief that reducing taxes on the wealthy will result in a huge economic boom time because all those good and true capitalists will invest all the money they're saving in order to make even more money; and this economic boom will create such a demand for workers that salaries and wages will go through the roof and no one will ever need government services again. But of course true believers can't name even one instance in all of human existence when that has happened, because it never has. Nor has "projected" revenue from such a scheme ever been realized. BTW, I'm not "for" liberal government. But I am adamantly "against" right-wing ignorance in all it's manifestations.

33) Comment by Scrooge - 11/10/2012

"...comments here amount to a bunch of words with little to keep them standing in a light breeze" the dust gently swirling where a man once stood.

34) Comment by InPVille - 11/10/2012

@gvm: Is that the best you can do? -[**]- I'll point again to "And what you seem to be unable or unwilling to admit is the significance of the point saintstevie made about the 142,187,000 working in January, 2009 and only 140,436,000 working in September, 2012. The population is increasing(but only due to immigration). The number working would have to have increased to even maintain the numbers." @gvm: " Your point about statistical gimmicks carries no weight because folks have always tried to twist them to their advantage." -[**]- I already made that point: "You should know that there is a gimmick to the way labor statistics have been used by both parties which tends to hide what is really going on,. . ." -[**]- So basically your comments here amount to a bunch of words with little to keep them standing in a light breeze.

35) Comment by gvm - 11/10/2012

Actually their reign of terror on the middle class was an unmitigated disaster.

36) Comment by gvm - 11/10/2012

@Triple: "Statist ideology," "unprecedented power grab?" Just because I believe that government has a role to play in society hardly makes me a statist. Also, your accusation of an unprecedented power grab is equally unremarkable considering the Bush-Cheney mob were responsible for growing government more than any other administration in recent history. It is telling that these two guys nor their "accomplishments" get little or no mention by the party faithful these days. That is because their reign of terror - on middle class Americans - was a monumental failure. How many jobs resulted from the Bush era tax cuts?

37) Comment by ABayouBoy - 11/10/2012

All that I know is that it is getting harder, and harder, to make ends meet for my little ole household in middle income USA. The numbers be damned. The wealthy simply have ways to hide their wealth from the tax collector.

38) Comment by Lary9 - 10/10/2012

Huey Long is rolling over in his grave out of sheer disappointment. Mr. Obama needs to channel a little more "Joe-Biden-Junkyard-Dog" and less "Professor Equanimity" to win points at these faux-debating exercises in reality TV.

39) Comment by Triple - 10/10/2012

InPVille, noble effort however futile.  Rhonda Browning (twinkie) is blinded by hate, she offers no intellectual argument, only partisan / racial loyalty to a politician who was exposed in the debate as an empty suit.  On the other hand, Mitt demonstrated traits of an accomplished manager, opposite of what the uninformed viewer had been spoon fed for months.  GVM volunteers his characterization of those who don't agree with a statist ideology as traitors, while this administration handling of the recent terrorist activity in Libya, resulting in the death of fellow citizens, is being exposed as scandalous, if not treasonous.  How can our fellow citizens be so blind to an unprecedented power grab by this incompetent administration at the expense of our liberty?

40) Comment by gvm - 10/10/2012

InPVille: Ideological kool-aid tastes nasty so I stopped drinking it long ago - perhaps you should too. Given the depth of the recession of 2008 I don't think the employment numbers would be any better even if a certain pretend "businessman" was in the White house. The damage done was too great. Your point about statistical gimmicks carries no weight because folks have always tried to twist them to their advantage. To overcome this, it is necessary to employ a bit of common sense when examining these statistics - something many seem not to be in the habit of doing, by the way. Nevertheless, when a political party refuses, across the board, to be part of the solution, they automatically become part of the problem. Eliminating GOP obstinance would go a long way toward making the overall situation better.

41) Comment by InPVille - 10/10/2012

@gvm: And what you seem to be unable or unwilling to admit is the significance of the point saintstevie made about the 142,187,000 working in January, 2009 and only 140,436,000 working in September, 2012. The population is increasing(but only due to immigration). The number working would have to have increased to even maintain the numbers. You should know that there is a gimmick to the way labor statistics have been used by both parties which tends to hide what is really going on, meaning it doesn't count certain groups of the unemployed. And as far as your "Moreover, when I take into account the wall of opposition that Tea Party/GOP traitors. . ." Get back to us after you taper off that ideological Kool-Aid. - - - http://www.cbo.gov/publication/25099 - - - The CBO estimates of the actual results of the already implemented job stimulus efforts shows that the expected Keynesian multiplier effect of the stimulus did not occur and the benefits "are expected to wane gradually in 2011 and beyond." Dittos produced from all the money pumped into Green initiatives. This should not surprise anyone. All the Keynesian model has given the Western World since WWII is tremendous amounts of debt and unsustainable entitlements given declining working age populations to fund them. It is in the interest of politicians to have people believe they can control the economy. However, the knowledge to produce a validated and tested model to do this isn't within the grasp of anyone.

42) Comment by InPVille - 10/10/2012

@twinkie1cat: The problem with your theory is that by and large the median household income in the U.S. for most all earner groups has generally trended up in adjusted dollars since the end of WWII regardless of which party had control of which Houses of Congress and/or the White House. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median%20Household%20Income.pdf - - - http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/familyincomebyearners.gif

43) Comment by gvm - 10/10/2012

@saitstevie: assuming that your statistics are correct, the fundamental flaw in what you put forward is that it looks at the number of employed people at discrete points in time without considering the associated trends before and after the dates you cite. When you look at the data objectively it's clear that the average annual unemployment rate bottomed out in 2006 and 2007 at 4.6% and then began a precipitous ramp upwards in 2008. The momentum associated with that upward surge carried over into 2009 and ultimately peaked in 2010 at 9.6%. It has been in a steady, albeit slow, decline ever since. I am taking the time to point this out because you guys (Republicans) seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp it on your own. Moreover, when I take into account the wall of opposition that Tea Party/GOP traitors have mounted to effectively kill any job-related legislation the president has offered, your point becomes even more irrelevant. It's been surprising to see the extent to which so-called conservatives have embraced Romney's theoretical "win" in the recent debate. It only serves to highlight how desperately disillusioned you guys had become. After the debacle in 2004, I am not willing to put anything past the GOP. However, know this: one debate does not a campaign win.

44) Comment by twinkie1cat - 10/10/2012

Always remember that Obama inherited the recession from George W. Bush, a conservative who started two wars in order to pay off his wealthy contributors. He has done everything he said he would do although the economy, a victim of three Republican Presidents and Clinton's Republican Congress did not recover as quickly as he wanted it to. It is still in recovery. The economic situation would only get worse under another Republican as Romney would continue to stimulate big business profits at the expense of everything but profits. The selfish top down economic policies of the Republican parties benefit no one but the rich and increase poverty among the middle class and the poor.

45) Comment by InPVille - 10/10/2012

Contrary to President Obama's statement that he only wants the wealthy to pay their fair share, the United States is already more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than many of the supposedly more socialized European and other countries. According to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) percentage figures for the richest decile: United States 45.1%, Italy 42.2%, Ireland 39.1%, United Kingdom 38.6%, Australia 36.8%, New Zealand 35.9%, Canada 35.8%, Netherlands 35.2%, Czech Republic 34.1%, Finland 32.3%, Slovak Republic 32%, Germany 31.2%, Luxembourg 30.3%, Austria 28.5%, Japan 28.5%, Poland 28.3%, France 28%(Of course this probably going to increase given the results of the recent elections in France), Korea 27.4%, Norway 27.4%, Sweden 26.7%, Denmark 26.2%, Belgium 25.4%, Iceland 21.6%, Switzerland 20.9% - - - Many European countries has Value Added Taxes(VATS) which increases the tax burden of other economic groups. - - - If the U.S. debt is ever going to be seriously addressed, it will require greater taxes on us lesser Germans which is something neither party is willing to admit this close to an election. Actually it is always too close to some election. Expenditures are also going to have to be reduced to get debt under control. Complicating this would be huge unfunded entitlement burdens which are fixing to hit us upside the head.

46) Comment by InPVille - 10/10/2012

@DMJ: Kindly cease misrepresenting what I write. More revenue was received. However, with added increases in social programs and the defense spending Reagan wanted, spending outpaced revenue. Also Congress was supposed to come up with reduced spending somewhere. But that never happened. This is why it would be foolish to agree to tax increases based on the promise of later spending cuts. Such cuts are not likely to ever be agreed to after tax increases. SPENDING CUTS FIRST! THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT MORE TAXES!

47) Comment by DMJ - 10/10/2012

"The fact isn't that the reduced tax rates didn't generate increase revenue." Exactly. Blame Arthur Laffer for this (economist in the Reagan administration). Reduced rates were supposed to generate more revenue for the government. As Pville explained, this didn't happen. The truth of the matter is...this was never the intended effect. The real purpose of reduced rates was to starve the beast...to result in cuts in services....to "pay for" the reduced rates. Lower taxes = less revenue = larger debt. It's simple math. Reaganomics was predicated on a lie, one that we know to be a lie, yet 1/2 of the country still believes with all their hearts that the reason it hasn't worked is because we haven't had enough of it. Amazing. Truly amazing.

48) Comment by InPVille - 10/10/2012

@postscript56: "After all, common sense is a rare commodity among those who believe. . . voter fraud has stolen every election, a twice-failed trickle down theory is the way forward, . . ." -[**]- Are you including in your list all of those on the "D" side of aisle who claimed Bush stole the 2000 election from Gore and next stole the 2004 election from Kerry. Perhaps you remember the "selected not elected" meme and wacko Diebold equipment rigging theories, and other symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome we heard so often during those years. I very much doubt it. How convenient the memory! -[**]- "Trickle Down Theory" is a political straw man argument and has never been advanced by any economists that I have ever heard of. The idea has been advanced that if the tax rate is 0%, the government will receive no revenue. AND If the tax rate is 100%, the government also will receive no revenue. Between those extremes there is a varying curve some sort of bell shaped curve(depending on economic conditions). Up to a certain point tax % rate increases generate more revenue. At a certain point revenue gains level out. Eventually tax % rate increases suppress economic activity and encourage people who have money to put somewhere to put that money into something that isn't taxable. If they have the ability to do so, Tax revenue declines. People don't generally earn and keep appreciable wealth very long by being stupid. However, there are other people gullible enough to believe that people do not change their behavior when conditions change and politicians willing to demagogue issues to take advantage thereby. It is demonstrably provable that on at least two occasions reducing taxes resulted in more tax revenue coming in to the U.S. government. It is also demonstrably provable that when more money came in as above, the government succeeded in spending an amount greater than the increased revenue. The fact isn't that the reduced tax rates didn't generate increase revenue. The fact is that the government can outspend revenue no matter how great.

49) Comment by nimby? - 10/10/2012

wow , that such an article would come from an unbiased , non partisan source as the NY Times is unthinkable . this administration , its' press corp have made a habit of having to explain what the president "really" meant . I think most get it first time around , no spin necessary . I expect more "splaining" between now and the election .

50) Comment by ABayouBoy - 10/10/2012

Obama "squandered" over $90 billion on green energy alone (Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov) and over $6 trillion in innocent taxpayers’ money. OMG, this guy must be tripping out on some form of crystal meth....Yes, he is a lifelong, born again, brain washed conservative republican idiot. Lets just keep on importing oil from all of our buddies in the middle east.

51) Comment by DMJ - 10/10/2012

So...the percentage we liberals were given by the media which come from Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics are bunk, because of the numbers that come from that same bureau? Got it. Thanks.

52) Comment by Being_Stupid - 10/10/2012

I am having a Fuzzy Math flashback. Does anybody remember Fuzzy Math?

53) Comment by saintstevie - 10/10/2012

When obama took office in jan 2009 there were 142,187,000 people working. As of sep 2012 there were only 140,436,000 people working. thats 1,751,000 LESS working during his term , so this whole jabberwocky about the unemployment rate doesn't jibe. You people need to just bite the bullet and admit that the community organizer you elected is a HUGE FAILURE as president. You can quote all the ultra-liberal media that you want but the facts is the facts, and come from his labor department. sorry, try another one

54) Comment by DMJ - 10/10/2012

Ah yes, the facts are biased. Grow up. There's a good op-ed about guys like you in the NY Times. It's about conspiracy theories, the last refuge of the right winger incapable of thinking about President Obama objectively. You should check it out. It's not every day you get an op-ed written about you in a national daily newspaper. Want some advice? Relax. The first election of Obama didn't "ruin the country" like all the yahoos said it would, just like the second election won't either. And if Romney is elected...big woop. He won't "ruin the country" either. Even if he wanted to (and I'm sure he doesn't), he wouldn't be able to. The President's not a dictator. Get a grip. You only live once. No need to spend angry at the Boogieman...

55) Comment by saintstevie - 10/10/2012

DMJ = Dim Minded Judgement. . To still blame Bush and think unemployment is lower than when obama started is just dim minded judgement. obama isn't using his blame bush rhetoric any more now he's on the big bird rhetoric. and yes all 90 billion WAS squandered and he's also squandering many more billions on more wasteful green energy (soon to be bankrupt)companies. I wonder who the entitlement junkies think the money will come from to pay their government checks when obama bankrupts this country. The 6 trillion came from failed policies, more welfare, and giving people an extra year on unemployment benefits because he DIDN'T create the jobs he lied to us about and he never intended to to begin with. He wants americans to jump on the dole so he and the rest of the democratic pol,s can keep their cushy jobs. This man FAILED BIG TIME and if reelected will totally ruin this country

56) Comment by DMJ - 10/10/2012

heh?

57) Comment by nimby? - 10/10/2012

question ; if a person no longer seeking a job is not considered unemployed why are many drawing unemployment compensation ? creative math is a wonderful thing .

58) Comment by DMJ - 10/10/2012

First of all.... ALL $90 billion was "squandered"? So..basically, any money that's spent on green energy is a waste? Awesome. And about the six trillion..... The Stimulus was less than 1 trillion. The rest was because of programs started BEFORE Obama took office and the declining revenue due to the recession, which also occured before he took office. You can blame him for not turning around the country's 2nd largest depression in less than 4 years (a silly charge, in my opinion), but to blame him for the entire amount of debt shows Mr. Ray's disingenuousness or his ignorance, neither one being very flattering. All this coming from a member of the world's most trusted proffession: insurance salesman. Ha! Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know...people don't like Obama. Blah, blah, blah.... Notice how Mr. Ray failed to mention that unemployment is lower now than when Obama took office. Oh...but that's because they "cooked the books" right. This is dumb....

59) Comment by Being_Stupid - 10/10/2012

Democrat Party = Taker and Parasite Party = Gimme Something for Free Party

60) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 10/10/2012

saintstevie gets the award for teh largest collection of ridiculous RW talking points in one single post. (messiah, bought car company, Bush should get credit, blah blah blah)

61) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 10/10/2012

rgeraldwallace...get your facts straight. The Dems never had a filibuster proof Senate (there is no such thing as a filibuster in the House since 1842 when the rule limiting debate was created). At most there were 58 Dems and 2 independents (Lieberman quit being progressive enough to vote with the Dems long ago). Try google before you make ridiculous claims next time

62) Comment by saintstevie - 10/10/2012

The democrats are getting nervous. This country is in such bad shape that their messiah didn't live up to his own hype and they can't defend him with any realistic answers. The ONLY ones who are better off since they voted him in is the welfare queens - food stamp fiends - and illegal immigrant teams, but you don't hear a peep from them about any of that. NOTHING. Now they resort to protecting Big Bird. It's pitiful and extremely funny. He bought a car company killed bin laden(which most if the credit shoild go to Bush) and he's trying to adopt Big Bird. What a laughing stock this presidency has become. Democrats and extreme liberals should just bow out gracefully

63) Comment by DMJ - 10/10/2012

"Bernie Madoff would get my vote over Obama." That about says it all, doesn't it, folks? Shows how much this yahoo's opinion is worth.

64) Comment by DMJ - 10/10/2012

Ahh yes, we're only voting for Obama because we're uninformed and because we're gullible enough to be swayed by the press, which is biased. Nothing like being condescended to on a Wednesday morning. Whatever, Lloyd.

65) Comment by [e-mail] - 10/10/2012

Obama and the Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency with filibuster proof majorities; they used that power to drive a stake in the heart of America and it's the people of America who are stopping them, not the Republicans. The Republicans didn't have the power and a lot of them didn't have the intestinal fortitude to do it.

66) Comment by 8point6 - 10/10/2012

www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

67) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 10/10/2012

Romney's flipflops as of Aug ---http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/mitt-romneys-biggest-flip-flops-20120801

68) Comment by postscript56 - 10/10/2012

Why is it that Ray and other conservatives always leave out of the equation the fact that Republicans have stood in unified opposition to everything Obama has tried to do. You can't blame the president for failure unless you include those in Congress who assist in that failure. But that's much too complex for the conservative mind. After all, comon sense is a rare commodity among those who believe sharia law is about to break out all over America, voter fraud has stolen every election, a twice-failed trickle down theory is the way forward, and the president is a socialist, Muslim, African-born foreigner. What a proud legacy!

69) Comment by gary - 10/10/2012

I agree with both comments below. The two wars still costing American lives and Romney's did a 180 in the debate from his previous 1,000 debates with the right wing nuts (not including Huntsman).

70) Comment by unevahno - 10/10/2012

I love it when republicans say that Romney gave "remedies" or "solutions" for anything. He has never said anything that he didn't immediately deny and contradict. He said that he'd never go into Pakistan after bin Laden, then recently, he said that he and his 5 sons killed bin Laden personally. He said he'd give a 20% across the board tax cut, but it wouldn't cost anything. It would be reveniue neutral. Let me see the hands of those who belive this.

71) Comment by Bighug - 10/10/2012

One of the worst things Obama has done is continue the wars that Bush lied to get us into.