published Sunday, April 15th, 2012

The Romney Plan

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

91
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Yano said...

Any president comes from a background. We've had wealthy champions of the poor (FDR, Kennedy). We've had self-made supporters of the job creators (Lincoln, Clinton). But no matter what their background, a president must be ready to be president of all the people.

Mitt Romney has shown zero ability to be a president of the country as a whole. His occupation of choice was to be a shark among capitalists, draining working companies vampire-style for quick profit before unloading the carcasses, along with countless thousands of jobs, as opposed to building strong growing organizations like a traditional businessman. Politically he has proven himself to be chameleonlike, willing to say anything at all for the sake of power, never mind what he was saying yesterday.

And the glib shallowness of his comments about women - holding up his privileged wife, mother of five and boss of more than a dozen household staff, as a representative of their daily concerns, needs, and fears, was revealing in more ways than one.

Women are not stupid and will not be fooled. America is already tired of this phony. The more they know him, the more they realize he can't possibly lead them.

April 15, 2012 at 4:17 a.m.
Landgrabbr said...

Romney, I hate seeing your ads while watching South Park. Please, please, just give the money to save the hungry in the USA. Then, let the rest trickle down to Mexico... They owned this land anyway,

April 15, 2012 at 7:05 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

A pink campaign button is all there is to Romney's platform for women. Naming Ann Romney chief advisor to women's issues is laughable and typical of Romney. She knows nothing of how critical a safety net is to women and families. Ann Romney doesn't have to worry when Republicans voted to kill Medicare. She has never known a need for Medicaid, SNAP, Title I lunches, public transportation, Head Start, etc..

Obama is up by 20 points with women. Until Mitt and Ann develop more of a campaign strategy, those numbers will remain a constant until election. Go Obama!!

April 15, 2012 at 7:31 a.m.
woody said...

If Romney will support the rights of women as well as men..fine. If he can see his way clear to represent those of without too much means in addition to those with more than enough..this will be good.

However, if he really wants to win the election, not to mention set aside a place for himself in the history books, Romney will see that it is his, and this country's, best interest to be a president to "The Left" as well as "The Right". Of course, bringing them closer together is likely an impossibility but would be the 'cherry' on top..Woody

April 15, 2012 at 8:47 a.m.
moonpie said...

This cartoon about sums up the cartoon candidate.

The Republicans are so lost. It's kind of sad, really.

They remind me that froth is mostly air.

April 15, 2012 at 9:14 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

4 of the first 5 posts are possibly the most ill-conceived and dumbest I've seen on here. Dem talking points that ring hollow. You mopes couldn't possibly believe this guano.

April 15, 2012 at 9:44 a.m.
joneses said...

I find it absolutely amazing how the liberals/dummycrats continue to insult women by thinking they are less important than men. It is truly pathetic.

April 15, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.
MTJohn said...

...and the first two conservative posts pretty much sum up the Republican talking points, no substance and consistent name-calling those with whom they disagree. How juvenile.

April 15, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

So John. You think that posting talking points from Dem marketing dept is substantive? "War on women", "Buffett rule", etc? Both are manufactured in Chicago. Clever, but hollow.

April 15, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

I’d say you’ve pretty much summed it, Clay Bennett. A little pink campaign button is about all Mitt Romney has to offer women. Personally, I don't care much for the color pink.

April 15, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
joneses said...

Why do the liberal women feel ike they need to be offered something? Are all the liberal women claiming they are helpless victims? What a shame that now the liberal/dummycrats give so little credit to women that they label them as helpless victims. How disrespectful to women the liberal/dummycrats actually are.

April 15, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.
dude_abides said...

joneses said... "I find it absolutely amazing how the liberals/dummycrats continue to insult women by thinking they are less important than men. It is truly pathetic."

Every single woman I have ever been acquainted with is sharper than you, joneses. Including all the women who post here... even blondebutnotjoneses. You should stick to professional "wrestling" commentary.

April 15, 2012 at 10:22 a.m.
dude_abides said...

I seem to have lost my ability to italicize and embolden my characters. I see, above, the same may be the case for many. Has this privilege been taken away (perhaps to quash imbeds)? I WANT ANSWERS!

April 15, 2012 at 10:28 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Sorry, JonRoss, but since those posts a few months ago, every time I see your name pop up I picture a jailhouse.

April 15, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

B.O. says Romney should let America see the "real" Romney. Uh, Barack.....

April 15, 2012 at 10:40 a.m.
Yano said...

Jones: I don't know who you think is calling women helpless. I only see Mitt Romney treating women with contempt, thinking he's entitled to their votes because his wife is a stay at home mom, a slam against working women everywhere, in the home and the workplace.

April 15, 2012 at 10:41 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jones cried from his Republican Soap Box: “Why do the liberal women feel ike they need to be offered something? Are all the liberal women claiming they are helpless victims?”

Your soap box is wobbling, Joneses. If you're not more careful, you'll take a great fall.

If elected president, Mitt Romney is offering irresponsible tax cuts and exclusive tax loopholes for America’s wealthiest and already overindulged 1%; he’s offering an opportunity for wall street, bankers, and the financial industry to continue to cheat, lie and steal from the rest of us; he’s offering to look the other way as America’s biggest polluters continue to poison our air, ground water and environment; he’s offering to destroy American unions to increase the corporate profits and CEO salaries.

And you ask why American women feel they need to be offered something?

April 15, 2012 at 10:57 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The misdirection of the masses continues.

How is it that the demokrats can so easily manipulate the thinking of their constituents?

Hint to the unwashed... There is no republican war on women. You are being told how to think and have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. If you don't get your eye on the ball you might reelect one of the worst presidents this country has ever known.

Do you have any idea how stupid you look?

April 15, 2012 at 11:15 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Yano said... "I don't know who you think is calling women helpless. I only see Mitt Romney treating women with contempt, thinking he's entitled to their votes because his wife is a stay at home mom, a slam against working women everywhere, in the home and the workplace."

One more prime example. Has someone put ketamine in your Special K?

April 15, 2012 at 11:22 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

John Ross replied to me stating the White House is in panic mode and they are not losing women. A 20 point lead for Obama and it was that same amount last month too, does not incite panic. It should for the RNC, but I guess they are waiting for a 100 point lead before they worry.

The GOP in all its glory issued an attack ad last week called "Obama's War on Women"- the headline is misleading because the ad is about HBO comedian Bill Maher. Please GOP try to stay on topic for once. Here's the cleverly misnamed ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JR4dT...

April 15, 2012 at 11:25 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Please give us patience.

April 15, 2012 at 11:34 a.m.
patriot1 said...

Little timmy geithner's boys down in Colombia not wanting to pay for services....and the Obama adminstration wants to tell us they support "working women"....such hyprocrites!!!!

April 15, 2012 at 11:36 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

dude_abides said... "I seem to have lost my ability to italicize and embolden my characters. I see, above, the same may be the case for many. Has this privilege been taken away (perhaps to quash imbeds)? I WANT ANSWERS!"

You can bracket your text with stars (*) to get italics and double stars to get bold.

Single stars (*) = STARS

Double stars (**) = STARS

Triple stars (***) = STARS

The bracketing is defeated by a carriage return.

April 15, 2012 at 11:42 a.m.

Yano well since you obviously feel that Romney has ability to be President. I may ask you what ability has the current one shown? ZERO that is what and if you look at their resumes it clearly shows Romney is much more qualified than the buffoon that is in the WH now.

April 15, 2012 at 11:46 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

JonRoss said: “You forgot to mention that Romney is going to poison our dogs, feed our children crack brownies, and sell our daughters into sex slavery etc.”

Well, thank-you JonRoss. Indeed, a Mitt Romney presidency offers even more crap:

If elected president, Mitt Romney is offering to privatized Social Security to benefit Wall Street and the financial investment industry; he’s offering assurance to the health care industry that only the healthy will be insured; he's offering to eliminate or reduce consumer protection to benefit irresponsible manufactuers; he’s offering to eliminate “freedom of religion” principles to please Christian fundamentalist religious organizations; and he’s offering religiously affiliated hospitals the right to deny emergency contraception assistance to rape victims.

[Note: Additional Mtt Romney for President “Offerings” Inspired by JonRoss]

April 15, 2012 at 12:04 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "Well, thank-you JonRoss. Indeed, a Mitt Romney presidency offers even more crap"

I have plenty of issues with Mitt Romney but your hyperbole does not move the discussion forward. I find myself tempted to defend Romney from the silly exaggerations and can expect that would lead to a perception that Romney is “my man”. This forum has a way of doing that. Rational discussion is drowned out by extreme vitriol. I often find myself getting sucked into it. I for one have better things to do with my time. Now I think I will go play in the yard.

April 15, 2012 at 12:18 p.m.
ibshame said...

Just as Rick Santorum won Tennessee in the primary, Mitt Romney will win Tennesse, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina and Kentucky. Clearly it doesn't matter what Romney's stand is on women in those states because he's going to carry them in the General in Nov. Now compare wages, the level of health care and education for women in those states and it makes one wonder why so many would vote against their own interests.

April 15, 2012 at 12:59 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

Thought for the day:

16 And behold, one came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" 17 And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." 18 He said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 20The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?" 21 Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieved; for he was one who owned much property.

I guess Republicans go away grieved.

stanleyyelnatsDOTcom

April 15, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.
Peggy_Hayes said...

Google Peggy Hayes.

"So Mitt Romney came to her apartment in the city of Somerville [in Massachusetts], and he delivers this message to her..The church does not want you to keep this baby; the church thinks it would be better if your soon-to-be-born son would grow up in a family with two parents, so we think you should give the child up for adoption. And Peggie Hayes' first reaction is that she must have misheard something because she can't believe what he's asking her to do. But he continues, according to her, and in fact goes so far as to threaten her with excommunication..."

Willard loves the working MOM?

April 15, 2012 at 1:50 p.m.
Landgrabbr said...

You know what really pisses me off? That you guys are not talking about the real problem. Spending all that money when you are going to lose anyway....

April 15, 2012 at 2:11 p.m.
MTJohn said...

Jack_Dennis said..."So John. You think that posting talking points from Dem marketing dept is substantive?"

Certainly more substantive than calling people names and more substantive than regurgitating spew picked up from Clear Channel and FoxNews.

And, as a footnote, you might have noticed that, unless I cite the source, I craft my own rhetoric.

April 15, 2012 at 2:23 p.m.
MTJohn said...

JonRoss said..."Barack Hussien Obama is the Jefferson Davis of our generation."

If that is the case, why didn't you vote for him?????????

April 15, 2012 at 2:25 p.m.
MTJohn said...

BigRidgePatriot said..."The misdirection of the masses continues."

I agree. You, Joneses, John Ross, TQ et al. are posting proof.

April 15, 2012 at 2:28 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

MT: You're crafty. I'll give you that.

April 15, 2012 at 3:25 p.m.
joneses said...

Mtlaurel said

If elected president, Mitt Romney is offering irresponsible tax cuts and exclusive tax loopholes for America’s wealthiest and already overindulged 1%; he’s offering an opportunity for wall street, bankers, and the financial industry to continue to cheat, lie and steal from the rest of us

Are you referring to obastards friends on Wall Street? Obastard did receve more election contributions than any president ever, about 10 million dollars. And are you referring to the tax breaks that benefit people like Gore, estimated worth 100 million dollars, Pelosi, 67 million dollars, Buffet, Gates and other wealthy democrats that say they should pay more but do not? You are nothing but a hypocrtical lying b%$#ch.

April 15, 2012 at 4:30 p.m.
jdavid said...

Any woman who votes Republican this year deserves what happens to her. The shame is - Her daughters don't

April 15, 2012 at 5:08 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Joneses screamed: “And are you referring to the tax breaks that benefit people like Gore, estimated worth 100 million dollars, Pelosi, 67 million dollars, Buffet, Gates and other wealthy democrats that say they should pay more but do not?”

Why do you always pick on Buffet, Gates, and Pelosi? Is it because people these people are saying the U.S. government should ask them to pay their fair share of taxes?

“OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places. . . “

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&pagewanted=print

April 15, 2012 at 7:02 p.m.

Mitt Romney is the Michael Dukakis of the GOP. Gonna be a long year.

April 15, 2012 at 7:21 p.m.
timbo said...

Why should Romney have a platform for women? Why are they "special?" The problem is that both parties want to divvy out free stuff to buy the woman vote.

Are women so childish that they have to be showered with false praise and coddled? The facts are that the "man" vote is just as important as the woman vote. Maybe we should childishly demand free viagra and free prostate cancer checks. If we did, we would be as childish as these liberal women.

How about the fact that Obama says that women's rights are so important to him then he supports these Muslim regimes that treat women like dogs....go figure.

April 15, 2012 at 7:28 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

nooga said... "BigRidgePatriot said... I love backing (Romney)"

You should try posting on a topic you know something about. I guess you wouldn't be posting at all then, would you?

Obamney 2012!

http://media.reason.com/mc/tcavanaugh/obamney.jpg?h=476&w=328

April 15, 2012 at 7:37 p.m.
joneses said...

mtlaurel

The government confiscates enough money from the 50% of those that pay income taxes. It is a spending problem you pathetic liar. if obastard wanted to raise taxes why did he, pelosi and reid not do it when they were in charge? If obastard wanted to raise taxes why did he extend what used to be the Bush tax cuts and is now referred to the obastard tax cuts? This fool you worship and regurgitate everything he says is only using taxes as a political tool to spread his hate speech about class warfare. if you do not see this you are a bigger foolish b%$ch than I thought. Your comment about Republicans wanting to pollute the air is more filth you sucked from obastards mouth and is another foolish liberal lie. Everything obastard has done has been a failure. Obastard is a pathological liar.

April 15, 2012 at 7:42 p.m.
rick1 said...

mntlaurel, The Buffett Rule would cause higher taxes for those who are not millionaires. Don't forget all of the middle class Americans who have 401(k) plans and other investments plans which would be affected by this rule.

And Obama said he would not raise taxes on the middle class.

April 15, 2012 at 8:09 p.m.
dude_abides said...

BRP... I appreciate your help. Now, which button do I hit to get as loud as a Chet plane?

April 15, 2012 at 9:26 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Rick1 said: “The Buffett Rule would cause higher taxes for those who are not millionaires. Don't forget all of the middle class Americans who have 401(k) plans and other investments plans which would be affected by this rule.”

Now, now, Rick1. Try to be a little more honest about the Buffet Rule:

"While it’s true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/capital-gains-tax-rates-benefiting-wealthy-are-protected-by-both-parties/2011/09/06/gIQAdJmSLK_story.html

April 15, 2012 at 9:36 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

dude_abides said... "I appreciate your help. Now, which button do I hit to get as loud as a Chet plane?"

I am pretty sure that would be the Caps Lock button!

April 15, 2012 at 10 p.m.
rick1 said...

MntLaurel, please think about the unintended consequences of the Buffett Rule as you may very well end up paying higher taxes on your dividends and captial gains.

Who would get hurt? IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees who depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard. Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65, according to IRS data.

But all American shareholders would lose. Higher dividend and capital gains taxes make stocks less valuable. A share of stock is worth the discounted present value of the future earnings stream after taxes. Stock prices would fall over time to adjust to the new after-tax rate of return. And if investors become convinced later this year that dividend and capital gains taxes are going way up on January 1, some investors are likely to sell shares ahead of paying these higher rates.

The question is how this helps anyone. According to the Investment Company Institute, about 51% of adults own stock directly or through mutual funds, which is more than 100 million shareholders. Tens of millions more own stocks through pension funds. Why would the White House endorse a policy that will make these households poorer?

Seldom has there been a clearer example of a policy that is supposed to soak the rich but will drench almost all American families.

http://www.theasi.org/in-the-news/obamas-divident-assualt.html

April 15, 2012 at 10:26 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Timbo said: Why should Romney have a platform for women? Why are they "special?"

Well, Timbo, lets start with an equal pay bill that was signed into law by President Obama in 2009 - The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The legislation had been introduced earlier, but the Republicans defeated it. As to why this type of bill was needed - try discrimination:

“Lilly Ledbetter was a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber’s plant . . . from 1979 until her retirement in 1998. . . Initially, Ledbetter’s salary was in line with the salaries of men performing substantially similar work. Over time, however, her pay slipped in comparison to the pay of male area managers with equal or less seniority. By the end of 1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark. . . This pay disparity led to further inequity in her "overtime pay, contributory retirement, 401(k), and social security."

“In March 1998, Ledbetter inquired into the possible sexual discrimination of the Goodyear Tire Company. In July she filed formal charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In November 1998, after early retirement, Ledbetter sued claiming pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.”

Ledbetter’s lawsuit eventually reached the Supreme Court. “Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the court. The Court held that according to Title VII, discriminatory intent must occur during the 180-day charging period. Ledbetter did not claim that Goodyear acted with discriminatory intent in the charging period by issuing the checks, nor by denying her a raise in 1998. . . Prior caselaw, the Court held, established that the actual intentional discrimination must occur within the charging period.”

“In 2007, several Democratic members of Congress introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which revised the law to state that if a present act of discrimination pertains, prior acts outside of the 180-day statute of limitations for pay discrimination can be incorporated into the claim.”

Needless to say, Republican male politicians defeated the bill. “During the campaign for the 2008 elections, the Democrats criticized Republicans for defeating the 2007 version of the bill, citing Republican presidential candidate John McCain's opposition. . . A new version of the bill was eventually re-introduced in the first session of the 111th United States Congress, obtaining this time the necessary support to pass cloture. The bill was then brought to the attention of the President and became the first act of Congress signed by President Obama since his inauguration on January 20.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Le... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v.Goodyear_Tire%26_Rubber_Co. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Le...

April 15, 2012 at 10:56 p.m.
328Kwebsite said...

Editorial, someone misspelled the word "paying" in your reader poll question about student loans. Edit the paper. Thanks.

April 16, 2012 at 12:08 a.m.

So I'm guessing nobody can refute Mitt Romney's lack of substance on the actual issue of providing for the interests of Women, which while they may intersect with that of men, do not always align.

April 16, 2012 at 12:38 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Rick1 said: “please think about the unintended consequences of the Buffett Rule as you may very well end up paying higher taxes on your dividends and captial gains. Who would get hurt? IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees who depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard.”

Shame on you, Rick1.You’re being disingenuous and I believe you know it. During the Reagan era the income earned from salaries and capital gains were taxed at the same rate – 28 percent – and according to Republicans everything was just hunky-dory during this era. Was it not?

What is most unsettling about your comment though is that you’ve completely ignored the dangerous economic scenario that we currently have in the U.S. Studies show that as of 2007, the wealth distribution in the U. S. is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands, which is simply unhealthy – unless, of course, you’re an advocate for banana republics:

Fact 1: The top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth.

Fact 2: The next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%.

Fact 3: 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85% of the wealth,

Fact 4: Only 15% of the wealth in the U.S. was owned by for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

Fact 5: In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households has an even greater share: 42.7%.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

April 16, 2012 at 8:57 a.m.
davisss13 said...

There is no republican war on women.

You keep saying that. Keep on digging.

The GOPers have lost their GD minds.

April 16, 2012 at 9:42 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

MountainLaurel is either incredibly misguided, or incredibly stupid.

April 16, 2012 at 9:43 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Jack_Dennis said..."MountainLaurel is either incredibly misguided, or incredibly stupid."

Considering the source of this criticism, she, obviously, is neither.

You do not have to agree with what she posts, but MountainLaurel is sharing her own perspectives and not just bad-mouthing other posters. The latter is the consistent character of your posts, Jack.

April 16, 2012 at 9:48 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Happywithnewbulbs said: "So I'm guessing nobody can refute Mitt Romney's lack of substance on the actual issue of providing for the interests of Women, which while they may intersect with that of men, do not always align."

Attitudinally, it’s blatantly obvious that Mitt Romney is a very self-centered kind of guy. He operates on one set of rules for his family, and another set of rules for everybody else, including issues related to money, politics and women.

On interest issues involving women, we hear Mit Romney praise stay-at-home moms like his wife Ann Romney who according to Mitt Romney have full time jobs so to speak. But when it comes to low-income moms - especially those receiving welfare - we hear Mitt Romney pontificate about the need for such women to get off their duffs and get a job.

Indeed, Mitt Romney tells us that even mothers with young children need to leave the home and go to work: “I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’” As to why Mitt Romney did not want his own wife to experience the “dignity of work” is not clear.

April 16, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
limric said...

whats_wrong_with_the_world believes,

Mitt Romney is the Michael Dukakis of the GOP. Gonna be a long year.

I think Obamney is more like the John Kerry of the GOP.

April 16, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

MT: And you posts are brilliant? Last I heard, this is an opinion forum. Course you southpaws only want to hear 1 side. Forever hypocritical.

April 16, 2012 at 10:31 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

MTJohn

Thank-you for the kind words. . . I truly appreciate it. . . As for Jack_Dennis, he reminds me of those little “talking” pull string dolls. . . Each time you pull its little string it says something to you. . . But like Jack_Dennis, the little "talking" dolls are not very articulate. . . They pretty much say the same thing over and over again.

April 16, 2012 at 10:44 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Jack_Dennis said..."MT: And you posts are brilliant? Last I heard, this is an opinion forum. Course you southpaws only want to hear 1 side. Forever hypocritical."

Jack - I am more than willing to thoughtfully consider the opinions of others, regardless of whether I agree with them. If you would like me to seriously consider your perspectives, please share them.

However, as you may have noticed, I do not have much patience for either the regurgitation of talk-radio spew or the denigration of people. Unfortunately, most of the conservative thinkers who post on this forum are only interested in repeating spew and calling people names. Please consider this an invitation to you to be an example and set a higher standard for those whose perspectives align with yours.

April 16, 2012 at 10:54 a.m.
ibshame said...

Mitt Romney (as the presumptive nominee for the Repub Party) and his wife are going to give their first sit-down interview tonight with Diane Sawyer. I can hardly wait to see how Romney begins to walk back his rhetoric from the primary. Santorum and Gingrich (the so-called REAL conservatives) will have to take tranquilizers to watch it. LOL

April 16, 2012 at 11:07 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

MTjohn: Interesting you mention regurgitation. (Idon't listen to talk radio, BTW) All I hear out of you leftists is Dem talking points.....echo chamber from Axelrod and other chicago thugs.... I pretty much give back what I get on here. Dialogue is one thing....hearing talking point after talking point...e..g. the made-up war on women, is boring.

April 16, 2012 at 11:50 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Jack - as I noted above and, as you would know if you are that familiar with David Axelrod's echo chamber, my posts are my own opinion unless I have included a cite to the source in the post. And, MountailLaurel posts the same way.

Also, note that, if you track the exchanges that have taken place between you and me, you have already "given" before I have "given back". And, everything I have "given back" has been a challenge of your ideas. I have yet to post an ad hominem.

April 16, 2012 at 11:57 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

I will give no more.

April 16, 2012 at 12:16 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jack_Dennis said: “All I hear out of you leftists is Dem talking points.”

I will welcome any politician to expand on these talking points:

“In a story headlined, "For Big Companies, Life Is Good," the Wall Street Journal reports that big American companies have emerged from the deepest recession since World War II more profitable than ever: flush with cash, less burdened by debt, and with a greater share of the country's income.

But, the paper notes, "Many of the 1.1 million jobs the big companies added since 2007 were outside the U.S. So, too, was much of the $1.2 trillion added to corporate treasuries."

To add to this embarrassment of riches, the consumer group Citizens for Tax Justice reports that more than two dozen major corporations -- including GE, Boeing, Mattel and Verizon -- paid no federal taxes between 2008 and 2011. . .

Corporate taxes today are at a 40-year-low . . .

Then look at this report in the New York Times: Last year, among the 100 best-paid CEOs, the median income was more than $14 million, compared with the average annual American salary of $45,230. Combined, this happy hundred executives pulled down more than two billion dollars.

What's more, according to the Times "... these CEOs might seem like pikers. Top hedge fund managers collectively earned $14.4 billion last year." No wonder some of them are fighting to kill a provision in the recent Dodd-Frank reform law that would require disclosing the ratio of CEO pay to the median pay of their employees. One never wishes to upset the help, you know. It can lead to unrest.

That's Wall Street -- the metaphorical bestiary of the financial universe. But there's nothing metaphorical about the earnings of hedge fund tigers, private equity lions, and the top dogs at those big banks that were bailed out by tax dollars after they helped chase our economy off a cliff. So what do these big moneyed nabobs have to complain about? Why are they whining about reform?

And why are they funneling cash to super PACs aimed at bringing down Barack Obama, who many of them supported four years ago?

Because, writes Alec MacGillis in The New Republic -- the president wants to raise their taxes. That's right -- while ordinary Americans are taxed at a top rate of 35 percent on their income, Congress allows hedge fund and private equity tycoons to pay only pay 15 percent of their compensation. The president wants them to pay more; still at a rate below what you might pay, and for that he's being accused of - hold onto your combat helmets -- "class warfare."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/the-rich-are-different-fr_b_1428812.html?ref=politics

April 16, 2012 at 1:58 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

mountainlaurel, AKA Leo Tolstoy.

April 16, 2012 at 2:02 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jack_Dennis, AKA: Dick, Jane, and/or Spot

April 16, 2012 at 2:09 p.m.
MTJohn said...

MountainLaurel - the class war in this country is over. Jack's side won.

April 16, 2012 at 2:15 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

MTJohn

Yes, I believe lots of economists will agree with what you say:

“The reality is that the government has implemented a wide range of policies that have led to a massive upward redistribution of before tax income over the last three decades. These policies have affected every corner of the market economy.

Just to take a few biggies, the fact that drugs are expensive is entirely due to government-granted patent monopolies. We spend about $300 billion a year on drugs that would cost less than $30 billion a year in a free market. The difference of $270 billion a year is close to 5 times what is at stake in extending the Bush tax cuts to the richest 2 percent of the taxpayers. (There are alternative mechanisms for financing drug research.)

Second, the reason why the wages of autoworkers have been depressed by having to compete with low-paid autoworkers in China, but the wages of doctors have not been similarly depressed is the result of deliberate government policy. We designed our trade policy to put our autoworkers in direct competition with workers who get paid less than $1 an hour in the developing world. The predicted and actual effect of this policy is to lower the wages of large segments of the U.S. workforce.

We could have designed trade policy to make it as easy as possible for smart kids from China, India and elsewhere to study to U.S. standards and then practice medicine, law, and economics in the United States. This would put the same downward pressure on the wages of these professions as we have seen for manufacturing workers and non-college educated workers in general. This would lead to huge gains to consumers and the economy in the form of lower costs for health care, college education and other services provided by highly paid professionals.”

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/

April 16, 2012 at 2:23 p.m.
MTJohn said...

Jack - thanks for the clarification. I did not realize until you brought it to my attention that the Wall Street Journal was a subsidiary of Izvestia.

April 16, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.
MTJohn said...

MountainLaurel - "trickle down" economics was an appropriate term. It's just that Ronald Reagan failed to clarify the content of the trickle.

April 16, 2012 at 2:31 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Now we have trickle up poverty. Move over, Greece

April 16, 2012 at 3:27 p.m.
MTJohn said...

Jack_Dennis said..."Now we have trickle up poverty."

Jack - the information in the WSJ article that MountainLaurel posted would suggest that we have trickle up wealth with trickle DOWN poverty the result. Please share the data on which you based your conclusion that poverty is trickling up.

April 16, 2012 at 4:24 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

New Poll Looks Dire for Romney

According to a recent ABC news poll, 35% of Americans view Romney favorably, whereas 47% have an unfavorable view of him. He is the first nominee to have a "net" unfavorable rating in 28 years.

Romney is viewed favorably by just 27% of women and 44% of men. Obama does better in both groups, being viewed favorably by 58% of women and 53% of men.

Only 12% view Romney strongly favorably, about half as many as see him strongly unfavorably. Obama is the opposite with 30% viewing him strongly favorably and only 26% viewing him strongly unfavorably.

To view the entire article, go to: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/record-shortfall-personal-popularity-challenges-romney-race-ahead/story?id=16151342#.T4yOm7NYtuI

April 16, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.
rick1 said...

MntLaurel said, "During the Reagan era the income earned from salaries and capital gains were taxed at the same rate – 28 percent – and according to Republicans everything was just hunky-dory during this era. Was it not? "

Yes, everything was hunky=dory during this era and this link will explain why it was compaired to now.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/comparing-reaganomics-and-

Reagan, who lowered the cap-gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent in his first term, actually wanted to lower it to 17.5 percent in his second term. The way the story ended, the final tax bill had two brackets of 15 percent and 28 percent, with substantial base-broadening and loophole-closing. Indeed, by slashing the top income-tax rate from 70 percent all the way to 28 percent, Reagan launched a huge prosperity boom that basically spanned three decades.

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/lawrence-kudlow/2012/04/14/obamas-misleading-reagan-reference/

MntLaurel, you seem to have a dislike for those who are wealthy. If you do not like the wealthy do you dislike the film stars in Hollywood or do you support them by going to the movies or renting their movie? Do you boycott products from corporations who have wealthy CEO's.? Do you boycott NBC, CBS, ABC since their CEO's make a large salary and the news anchors are making several million dollars a year? If you really are concerned about the wealthy making more you should be boycotting all products or services that are run by the wealthy including big oil.

April 16, 2012 at 6:37 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

If you are as utterly bored with Bennett's distractions as I am, here is an interesting story.

http://www.naturalnews.com/035585_Michigan_farms_raids.html

Why does it seem that the government is waging war on family farms?

April 16, 2012 at 10:14 p.m.
moonpie said...

BRP,

If you are bored, then you are boring....

There is a song in there somewhere.

I was just about to compliment you on actually contributing in a more meaningful way recently. I won't let your last post stop me. You really are a lot more interesting when you're not talking about Clay.

April 16, 2012 at 11:08 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Rick1 said: “you seem to have a dislike for those who are wealthy.”

Is that you Mitt Romney?

Actually, what I dislike is an unfair tax system, which gives preferential treatment to a certain segment of our population at the expense of this country and its citizenry.

“The 400 richest taxpayers in 2008 counted 60 percent of their income in the form of capital gains and 8 percent from salary and wages. The rest of the country reported 5 percent in capital gains and 72 percent in salary.”

“For the very richest Americans, low tax rates on capital gains are better than any Christmas gift. . . This is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically. The rates on capital gains — which include profits from the sale of stocks, bonds and real estate — should be a key point in negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit, some lawmakers say.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/capital-gains-tax-rates-benefiting-wealthy-are-protected-by-both-parties/2011/09/06/gIQAdJmSLK_story.html

April 17, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Rick1 said: “Reagan, who lowered the cap-gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent in his first term, actually wanted to lower it to 17.5 percent in his second term. The way the story ended, the final tax bill had two brackets etc. . . “

Interesting story. But I note you don't say anything about the Tax Reform Act of 1986 – a law that was championed by President Reagan. Why was this? Surely, it wasn’t because you didn’t want to mention that as a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 that capital gains were taxed at the same rate as people who earned their money by working – and that rate was 28%.

Have you ever wondered what President Reagan might say today? I suspect Stockman knows:

"It's an obsolete provision that originated in the 1970s when we had double-digit inflation," David Stockman tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz.

Stockman, the budget director under Ronald Reagan, supported the capital-gains measure at the time as a congressman from Michigan. "With double-digit inflation," he says, "you were taxing phantom gains."

The U.S. hasn't suffered from that kind of inflation in 30 years. Since then, the low capital gains tax has become a huge windfall for the rich.

"Worse, it is an incentive to get all of the high-paid tax lawyers and accountants in the world to figure out ways to transform earned income into capital gains," Stockman says.

If capital gains were taxed at the same rate as regular income, he says, the government could bring in tens of billions of dollars more each year. But more importantly, he says, ending the perverse incentives could lead to even more revenue down the road when income of all types is taxed uniformly.”

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/09/137729769/crusade-to-fix-tax-code-gains-steam

April 17, 2012 at 10 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

"general welfare," or the particular welfare of women? Let's see, what groups can we use tax dollars to buy the votes of?

Dunno about women, but O'Romneycare isn't conservative and bearing false witness against Gingrich and Santorum violates the 9th commandment. The Libertarian and Constitution parties are looking for a few good voters.

April 17, 2012 at 11:36 a.m.
chet123 said...

JACK..YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND....JACK ONLY POST SIMPLE SENTENCES BECAUSE HE IS A SHALLOW MAN......JACK HAVE NO DEPTH TO HIS AGRUMENTS....HE JUST MAKE A SIMPLE SENTENCE....JACK DO A QUICK DRIVE THRU....AND RUN LIKE THE DEVIL BEFORE THERES A REBUTTAL.......

April 18, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.
chet123 said...

HEY EVERYBODY.....DONT JACK LOOK LIKE SANTA CLAUS......ALL HE NEED IS A RED SUIT........IF ANYONE OUT THERE HAVE A RED SUIT....CONTACT ME AND LET ME KNOW....I WILL SEE JACK HAVE THAT SUIT AROUND CHRISTMAS...

April 18, 2012 at 1:57 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.