His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

[74novaman]

Maybe I'll be the first to come out and openly say I'm an Obama supporter. Why am I an Obama supporter? Here is why.

1. I'm a college educated engineer who has prostituted myself for the military/industrial complex for 32 yrs. and can not afford to retire. Our for profit health care costs more than my pension.

I've been trying to figure out a way to say this for the past hour without it sounding like a personal attack.

Please understand that I am not aware of your individual circumstances, nor do I expect you to justify your own spending/savings to an anonymous person or forum on the internet. Now that I have that business out of the way.....

If you spent 32 years pulling down an engineering salary and can't afford to retire, may I suggest checking this out?

http://www.daveramsey.com/fpu/

I suspect your problem may lie closer to home than at the door of the "military/industrial complex".

[recaffeination]

He sounds like an Obama supporter. He didn't sacrifice for his future but expecs us to sacrifice for his future.

[glockstero]

I have ZERO sympathy for a man who spent 32 years in a career he himself describes as prostitution.
I guess it was Bush's fault he didn't man-up and go do something else.

[Birdshot70]

If you spent 32 years pulling down an engineering salary and can't afford to retire, may I suggest checking this out?

http://www.daveramsey.com/fpu/

I suspect your problem may lie closer to home than at the door of the "military/industrial complex".

Sound advise for ANYONE regardless of career, job, home, race, creed or stance in this political climate!

[2firfun50]

Maybe I'll be the first to come out and openly say I'm an Obama supporter. Why am I an Obama supporter? Here is why.

1. I'm a college educated engineer who has prostituted myself for the military/industrial complex for 32 yrs. and can not afford to retire. Our for profit health care costs more than my pension.
2. I can't support anyone whose tax plan favors the rich and punish the ones who made them rich.
3. Trickle down economics simply does not work. The rich do not create jobs unless they get richer.
4. If you a little root cause analysis of our current economic crisis, you might just discover (as I have) it all started while Republicans were in control of all 3 branches of government.
5. You can't be at war for over 10 yrs., finance it it "off budget" expenditures, and cut taxes at the same time. The balloon payment is now due. And those who got rich off of the past policies need to pay the bill.

So, were you IN the military, or did you simply work for a defense contractor? And if YOU want to use the word "prostituted", well you don't seem to think to highly of YOUR career choice it would seem. I spent just over 20 years turning wrenches as an aircraft mechanic for the USAF, and overall, I'm proud of the work I did. Numbers two and three in your list seem like something right out of the works of Karl Marx, mere rhetorical class warfare. As to number four, WHERE did you "discover" that information? And with number five, yes, the wars have been expensive, no doubt...but less expensive than entitlement spending, and you can see that from the government sources, even. Seems like GE, whose jet engines that I like BTW, have made a LOT of money off of this...but they managed to dodge paying taxes...and they are HUGE Democrat Party supporters...so that last one doesn't quite wash, either.

I spent 4 yrs in the 2d Armored Division, Fort Hood Tx. Overseas twice. I was very proud of my career choices until the 2nd invasion of Iraq. Are still looking for the WMDs?

Didn't get squat in benefits out of my army time, not getting squat now out of my retirement. Since you spent over 20 yrs in the USAF, you should be drawing a 50% or better pension. Full medical coverage etc. You earned it and I'm paying for it. No complaints

Just want what I earned, just like you. Nothing more, nothing less. If you are willing to give up yours, I'm willing to give up mine.

[RoyGBiv]

2. I can't support anyone whose tax plan favors the rich and punish the ones who made them rich.
3. Trickle down economics simply does not work. The rich do not create jobs unless they get richer.

I'd like to suggest to anyone that would jump down your throat for "coming out" that they are missing an opportunity to get your honest viewpoint and understand from another forum member, why you feel/believe the way that you do. I don't agree with most of what you posted, but, I'll defend your right to say say it. Here or elsewhere.

Regarding your point #2....
The Dems are doing a good job at making it sound like this is the case. The Dems will have you believe that the GOP would give rich people tax breaks on the backs of the middle class (not the poor, because the poor aren't paying anything). Here's the facts.... Our tax code is designed to give breaks to everyone who is politically connected enough to sway the congressional vote. It's a tax code rife with gifts for people with money. Those gifts exist from both sides of the political spectrum. Electric vehicle tax credit? WHY?, Tax credits for oil companies? WHY? I could go on for hours. If you cannot see that the Dems are as guilty as the GOP of giving your money to rich connected people, then I'm not going to win you over here.... I bet ALL of us here are disgusted with this practice, bar none. The solution is not to buy in to the demagoging of either side. The solution is to vote out ANYONE that votes in favor of a tax break that isn't available to EVERYONE. And to start by throwing out the current tax code, declaring some minimum threshold (poverty line, whatever you want to call it) and above that line EVERYONE pays the same tax rate. Total income (minus some allowance for charitable deductions, the ONLY deduction I would allow), multiplied by XX% = your tax obligation.

I'd encourage you to examine your reasons for believing your point #2. I believe your anger is misplaced.

Regarding your point #3.. All I can say is this...
Nobody, NOBODY is going to invest their money, take a financial risk, without the expectation of a return. Even giving to charity comes with an expectation of some "payoff" in the form of bettering the general welfare of your community. If you believe people should be so noble as to give freely of their earned income so that the government can spend it more wisely on the greater good, I suggest you are mistaken.

So... Yes... The rich create jobs with the expectation of getting richer (outside of charitable giving). That is life. I would not have it any other way. The thing that strikes the nerve for me is that "the connected class" has access to government "favors" (tax code, grants, etc.) that the rest of us poor slob don't. Do I blame the rich for this? No. I blame the voters for being so easily swayed by rhetoric, lies and divisive accusations.

So the question becomes.... Who (Romney or Obama) will offer a better solution for these problems?

All I hear is fear mongering from the Left. Stealing from the poor to give tax breaks to the rich. Pushing granny's wheelchair over the cliff. Well, here's real fear...... This country is headed for a fiscal disaster that will destroy us. We cannot sustain the current spending levels on entitlements, on bureaucracy, on defense, on welfare. The Dems are promising to double down on these things because they are (supposedly) kinder and gentler. But they ignore the fact that it will bring economic disaster to continue on the same path.

Be angry and disappointed at every politician. I am. But try to see through the rhetoric and figure out who is actually trying to offer solutions, not just promises that, if kept, lead to financial ruin. Demand that the "connected class" be set on equal terms as the rest of us.

[74novaman]

Just want what I earned, just like you.

Let' talk some numbers. Exactly what do you feel the fed govt (and by extension the taxpayers) owe you?

What sort of monthly check are you expecting here?

Free healthcare too?

Spell out for us exactly what it is that you earned that someone has managed to somehow keep you from collecting on, please.

[The Annoyed Man]

Maybe I'll be the first to come out and openly say I'm an Obama supporter. Why am I an Obama supporter? Here is why.

1. I'm a college educated engineer who has prostituted myself for the military/industrial complex for 32 yrs. and can not afford to retire. Our for profit health care costs more than my pension.

The decision to "prostitute yourself" as your so charmingly put it was yours, and yours alone. That you chose to do it is not my problem. Nobody held a gun to your head. If you didn't respect what you do, why did you stay? That you choose to view an honest well-paid job as prostitution is a bigger comment on you than it is on defense industry jobs. There are/were plenty of other jobs in other industries for graduated engineers: automotive (General Motors), energy (Solyndra, Ener1), and other members of Obama's chrony capitalist circles. Another thing that is not my problem: your failure while you had a solid job with a good salary, to put aside enough of your earnings to supplement your pension, even if it meant cutting back on your lifestyle a little bit in order to make that happen..........kind of like the rest of us have to do.

2. I can't support anyone whose tax plan favors the rich and punish the ones who made them rich.

The "workers" didn't make the rich rich. The workers got paid. They didn't give their labor away. In many cases, they made more money in union salaries than their managers, or shareholders did. That's just more of the "Eat the Rich" baloney. It's a free market, if they didn't like the salary they got, then they could go sell their labor to another employer. Or, they could do like so many others have done, and SUCK IT UP, and start their own business. And when you say "punish," are you for realz serious? So the 47% or so of taxpayers who pay ZERO income taxes are being punished by the remaining taxpayers who pay ALL of the taxes? Your math is deeply flawed. I submit the following to show who benefitted the most from the Bush tax cuts: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometax ... ysmost.htm

According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.

• In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
• Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

Other facts from the implementation of the Bush tax cuts that democrats don't want to talk about: the share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers fell from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent; the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent; and the average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers fell by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent. By the way, back then, democrats filibustered until they could get the the Bush cuts made temporary.........the same cuts that Obama wants to extend for two years (until after the elections because he is a COWARD, and so are the other elected democrats) but doesn't believe enough in to make them permanent........except for the "Eat the Rich" part.

So, already the rich are getting soaked and the not-rich are paying a MUCH lower percentage of all taxes paid.

3. Trickle down economics simply does not work. The rich do not create jobs unless they get richer.

For one thing, "Trickle down" is not the real name of the theory, it is "Supply Side Economics." People who don't understand it call it "trickle down" because they think they are owed more than they work for. As for not creating jobs unless you get richer, are you a communist or something? Half of the jobs created in this country are created by small business people, many of whom go without so that their payroll obligations are met. Here's the problem with Obama: He hates millionaires, and he defines anyone who makes over $250,000/year as a millionaire.....even though many of them will net out $35,000/year after paying their employees and other expenses. Give me a break.

4. If you a little root cause analysis of our current economic crisis, you might just discover (as I have) it all started while Republicans were in control of all 3 branches of government.

Nice try. The economy has been struggling ever since FDR handcuffed it. Even some of his closest advisors published later that in retrospect, if they had done nothing and just kept their hands off of it, the great depression would have been shorter and less severe. Worse yet, he set in motion the permanent idea of entitlement.

5. You can't be at war for over 10 yrs., finance it it "off budget" expenditures, and cut taxes at the same time. The balloon payment is now due. And those who got rich off of the past policies need to pay the bill.

There are so many holes in this last statement....where to start?...... First of all, for the past THREE years, the democrat led senate has failed to pass a budget. Harry Reid (may his personal business turn green, shrivel up, and fall off) won't let them! And when Obama submitted his budget to them, they voted it down 97 to 0! His own party!!! Doesn't that tell you something? But let's go back further in history, prior to the past three years. I don't know about you, but I recall a number of times since 9/11/01 that Congress had opportunities to vote on war funding and did so! It wasn't financed "off budget." That's just hooey. And for the record, that was during a period when for the first four years of it, republicans held both houses of Congress and the presidency. And then even in the subsequent 4 years with a republican president, an evenly divided Senate, and a democrat House, they still passed war expenditures, on the books!! It wasn't until you had a republican House, dying to get a budget passed, a president whose own party won't pass his budget proposals because they are so deeply irresponsible that even democrats know it won't work, and a Senate whose head cheeseball won't allow a senate sponsored budget to be voted on that we've had to contend with war funding "off budget." Oh, and whose discretionary spending budget funded it instead? PRESIDENT FREAKIN' OBAMA'S!!!!!

The problem with democrats is that they're long on "I believe this," and "I feel," and very short on fact based thinking.

[The Annoyed Man]

2. I can't support anyone whose tax plan favors the rich and punish the ones who made them rich.
3. Trickle down economics simply does not work. The rich do not create jobs unless they get richer.

I'd like to suggest to anyone that would jump down your throat for "coming out" that they are missing an opportunity to get your honest viewpoint and understand from another forum member, why you feel/believe the way that you do. I don't agree with most of what you posted, but, I'll defend your right to say say it. Here or elsewhere.

Regarding your point #2....
The Dems are doing a good job at making it sound like this is the case. The Dems will have you believe that the GOP would give rich people tax breaks on the backs of the middle class (not the poor, because the poor aren't paying anything). Here's the facts.... Our tax code is designed to give breaks to everyone who is politically connected enough to sway the congressional vote. It's a tax code rife with gifts for people with money. Those gifts exist from both sides of the political spectrum. Electric vehicle tax credit? WHY?, Tax credits for oil companies? WHY? I could go on for hours. If you cannot see that the Dems are as guilty as the GOP of giving your money to rich connected people, then I'm not going to win you over here.... I bet ALL of us here are disgusted with this practice, bar none. The solution is not to buy in to the demagoging of either side. The solution is to vote out ANYONE that votes in favor of a tax break that isn't available to EVERYONE. And to start by throwing out the current tax code, declaring some minimum threshold (poverty line, whatever you want to call it) and above that line EVERYONE pays the same tax rate. Total income (minus some allowance for charitable deductions, the ONLY deduction I would allow), multiplied by XX% = your tax obligation.

I'd encourage you to examine your reasons for believing your point #2. I believe your anger is misplaced.

Regarding your point #3.. All I can say is this...
Nobody, NOBODY is going to invest their money, take a financial risk, without the expectation of a return. Even giving to charity comes with an expectation of some "payoff" in the form of bettering the general welfare of your community. If you believe people should be so noble as to give freely of their earned income so that the government can spend it more wisely on the greater good, I suggest you are mistaken.

So... Yes... The rich create jobs with the expectation of getting richer (outside of charitable giving). That is life. I would not have it any other way. The thing that strikes the nerve for me is that "the connected class" has access to government "favors" (tax code, grants, etc.) that the rest of us poor slob don't. Do I blame the rich for this? No. I blame the voters for being so easily swayed by rhetoric, lies and divisive accusations.

So the question becomes.... Who (Romney or Obama) will offer a better solution for these problems?

All I hear is fear mongering from the Left. Stealing from the poor to give tax breaks to the rich. Pushing granny's wheelchair over the cliff. Well, here's real fear...... This country is headed for a fiscal disaster that will destroy us. We cannot sustain the current spending levels on entitlements, on bureaucracy, on defense, on welfare. The Dems are promising to double down on these things because they are (supposedly) kinder and gentler. But they ignore the fact that it will bring economic disaster to continue on the same path.

Be angry and disappointed at every politician. I am. But try to see through the rhetoric and figure out who is actually trying to offer solutions, not just promises that, if kept, lead to financial ruin. Demand that the "connected class" be set on equal terms as the rest of us.

Roy for president!

[Heartland Patriot]

Maybe I'll be the first to come out and openly say I'm an Obama supporter. Why am I an Obama supporter? Here is why.

1. I'm a college educated engineer who has prostituted myself for the military/industrial complex for 32 yrs. and can not afford to retire. Our for profit health care costs more than my pension.
2. I can't support anyone whose tax plan favors the rich and punish the ones who made them rich.
3. Trickle down economics simply does not work. The rich do not create jobs unless they get richer.
4. If you a little root cause analysis of our current economic crisis, you might just discover (as I have) it all started while Republicans were in control of all 3 branches of government.
5. You can't be at war for over 10 yrs., finance it it "off budget" expenditures, and cut taxes at the same time. The balloon payment is now due. And those who got rich off of the past policies need to pay the bill.

So, were you IN the military, or did you simply work for a defense contractor? And if YOU want to use the word "prostituted", well you don't seem to think to highly of YOUR career choice it would seem. I spent just over 20 years turning wrenches as an aircraft mechanic for the USAF, and overall, I'm proud of the work I did. Numbers two and three in your list seem like something right out of the works of Karl Marx, mere rhetorical class warfare. As to number four, WHERE did you "discover" that information? And with number five, yes, the wars have been expensive, no doubt...but less expensive than entitlement spending, and you can see that from the government sources, even. Seems like GE, whose jet engines that I like BTW, have made a LOT of money off of this...but they managed to dodge paying taxes...and they are HUGE Democrat Party supporters...so that last one doesn't quite wash, either.

I spent 4 yrs in the 2d Armored Division, Fort Hood Tx. Overseas twice. I was very proud of my career choices until the 2nd invasion of Iraq. Are still looking for the WMDs?

Didn't get squat in benefits out of my army time, not getting squat now out of my retirement. Since you spent over 20 yrs in the USAF, you should be drawing a 50% or better pension. Full medical coverage etc. You earned it and I'm paying for it. No complaints

Just want what I earned, just like you. Nothing more, nothing less. If you are willing to give up yours, I'm willing to give up mine.

If you spent four years in the US Army, you can go to the VA and apply for healthcare...I finally got myself down to the VA Clinic here in Fort Worth, not because I have anything specifically wrong with me at the moment, but just to get into "the system" for the future. I used a LOT of nasty chemicals for many years, and some of that was before anyone cared much about protective equipment (and even that doesn't keep it all off of you), so who knows what might happen to me down the road. Anyway, the point I am getting at is that the VA is there, nothing to stop a veteran from getting signed up. Oh, and there is no "full medical coverage", though I do have an affordable healthcare plan for being a military "retiree".

I'm sorry that you feel that way about the war in Iraq. I went to the desert several times, I did my best to fix airplanes and to lead my airmen in fixing and making those airplanes ready to go up every day. The "boots on the ground", including my brother-in-law who did multiple tours to Iraq, depended on us, and I did my best to not let them down. So, I AM PROUD of my service, I earned that check I get for however long they are willing and able to give it to me, and I will NOT feel bad about my career OR receiving the check that was part of that contract I made with the United States of America.

[Teamless]

Roy for president!

TAM For President (or VP behind Roy)

[glockstero]

Love it when democrats blame Bush for their miserable lives 4 years after the man left office.

Facts: Democrats were in charge of the House and Senate from 2006 to 2010.
Democrats have been in charge of the Senate since 2006.
Democrats had control of the House, Senate, AND White House from 2008 to 2010.

Go to Youtube and do a search on Democrat support for the Iraq War.
Go to youtube and do a search for the 2005 hearings on the impending Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac failures that created the financial meltdown. You'll see one after the other democrat cry racism because the head of Fannie Mae was a black guy and that everything was fine.

I could go on and on with facts but I suspect an admitted Obama supporter wouldn't be interested.

[2firfun50]

As near as I can research, the Social Security trust Fund is owed 27% of the national debt. That money has been borrowed to support other government spending. That equates to over $3 trillion owed to everyone. With the aging population and more people becoming eligble for benefits, that money needs to be paid back (with interest) so it is available to pay benefits. That and with continuing contributions should be plenty for retirement and inproved medical benefits.

The Federal reserve is owed 17% of the national debt. That money needs to be paid back (with interest) and made available for private investment to start new business, grow current business, and be available for private consumer lending. All of which will stimulate the economy and be beneficial for job growth. $2+ trillon dollars should be plenty to get us out of this recession. The holders of these securities are also getting older and will want to "cash in" and begin spending what they have earned in their later years (money goes straight into the economy).

Where is the money to pay back these loans? Tax money of course. So taxes for everyone are going to have to increase in a fair and equitable manner. I'm tired of paying 23% while those living off investments are paying 15%. We cannot expect the working poor to pay much, there is no blood left in the turnip. Tax breaks for overseas profit, overseas investments, and yes even the beloved home mortage deduction must go. That is nothing more than a government subsudy for the housing industry.

On the spending side, budgets near and dear to many are going to be forced downward. Military spending, foreign aid, pet congressional projects (pork which gets you re-elected). They must be cut far enough to allow substantial regular, routine payments to Social Security and the Federal Reserve (buy back the bonds, notes etc and force the money into the private sector).

In my opionion, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not "entitlements". They are forced investments in the future. We have paid into that system since 1939 and it is too late to call a mulligan. For me, "Now" is the future I have been investing in it for a total of 47 yrs. It is time.

Its time to quit playing the shell game and get serious. The balloon payments are due. Neither party. nor the American people have the will or the courage.

[Teamless]

'm tired of paying 23% while those living off investments are paying 15%.

You are paying 23% on money you earned working.
They are paying 15% on money they invested and were on the right side of the investment.

There are 2 things to consider:
1 - they already paid their 23% on money they earned, then they took that earned (and taxed money) and invested it, and paid another 15% on earnings there, so they are essentially DOUBLE TAXED.
2 - they are [only] paying 15% on investment gains, but how much did they actually lose on their other investments?
So in the end, how much are they really paying out?
23% originally
15% on earnings
??? of losses?

you mentioned 3+trillion for SS, and 2+trillion for Federal Reserve. That is 5+ trillion total.
When Obama took office we were 5trillion in deficit, now we are 15 trillion. Does it seem that the Dems, behind Obama can decrease the deficit? maybe not!

SSN, Medicare and Medicade, as long as people ACTUALLY paid in, I agree they should still get it.
Personally, i KNOW when I [hopefully can] retire in 22 years, there will be ZERO SS for me and yet, I KNOW I will still be paying into it for the next however many years until I can retire.

There is a lot wrong with the government, but the question you need to ask, is who will do a better job of fixing it (or not making worse the quickest as you want to dwell on the negative).
The numbers don't lie, Obama racked up 10+ trillion deficit in not even 4 years, and as soon as Obama-care takes full effect, add another trillion or more on that date.

[RoyGBiv]

Roy for president!

I'm truly flattered, especially considering the source.
I think we're on the same page much of time, TAM, but your are far more eloquent than me in clearly expressing the essence of the issue and getting to the root of things.

Cheers