Why we must have a conservative Congress
Anyone remember Dr. Strangelove? It was Stanley Kubrick’s classic 1964 film. The full title is Dr. Strangelove: or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
We conservatives are having our Dr. Strangelove moment, except we should call it Mitt: How we learned to stop worrying and love liberal Republicans.
Unfortunately, we are reminded almost daily where Romney is, what he will do and most of all, why we need a strongly conservative congress.
From CNS News:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has repeatedly vowed during his presidential campaign that if he is elected president he will maintain the "progressivity" of the tax code, so that as a person's income goes up he or she will be required to give an increasing percentage of it to the government in taxes.
Romney's advocacy of a progressive tax goes back a long way. In 1996, as a private citizen, according to the Boston Globe, he spent $50,000 of his own money to run full-page advertisements in the Globe, the Des Moines Register, the New Hampshire Sunday News and the Boston Herald to express his opposition to the 17-percent flat tax that then-presidential candidate Steve Forbes was promoting as a part of his campaign.
"I'm hoping that by running these ad voters will realize the Forbes flat tax is a gimmick, a phony, and not what it pretends to be," Romney told the Globe that year.
Romney's ads against the Forbes flat tax, the Globe reported, attacked Forbes's plan because it did not tax interest, dividends or capital gains. "The Forbes tax isn't a flat tax at all--it's tax cut for fat cats!" Romney's ad said.
In this campaign, Romney's insistence that he will maintain the progressivity in the tax code seems to reject a tenet of supply-side economics--which holds that reducing the marginal tax rate increases the incentive for small business people to invest additional dollars expanding their businesses and creating jobs because they will not be penalized for the added return that risking their money might bring it.
In an April 17 interview with Larry Kudlow on CNBC, Romney indicated that he intended to take back from the wealthiest taxpayers any break they got from the reducing the top income tax rates by eliminating for them some of the tax deductions that people in lower brackets would still be able to claim.
"[U]nderstand," said Romney, "that virtually all the of the deductions and exemptions, particularly for high-income taxpayers are going to be on the table, because we are going to have to eliminate--well, limit rather, not eliminate, but limit--for high-income individuals some of the deduction and exemptions in order to compensate for the deductions in rates."
This is the problem and Romney, like so many other liberals remains clueless. The tax system is broken. The tax system should not be about picking winners or losers. It should only be about funding the government.
We have a huge problem. Not only do we have a broken, Byzantine tax system that only benefits Washington insiders and those who are “takers” not makers, we have an out of control spending problem.
All our current tax code does is provide for the easy, endless expansion of government.
Herman Cain has been out with his 9-9-9 plan. While not a perfect plan, it is so much better than anything else that is out there and it is so much better than anything Mitt Romney or Barack Obama is offering.
This year, we are going to have to elect a conservative congress that will force Mitt Romney to move to the right when he is elected.
This year, our fight is for the House and the Senate. We do need to get rid of Barack Obama, but understand what we are getting with Romney.
This is why conservatives must be elected in the House and the Senate.
Tags: 9-9-9, cain, code, herman, liberal, mitt, progressive, romney, tax
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gary L Hastriter on -
Billy B: The question on Romney is, when his Great (what) Grandfather fled to Mexico, did he denounce his citizenship. If he did, he would have to be Naturalized when he returned. I think I said this right.
Rubio for Veep is the reason Congress won't get rid of ZERO. If, and we know he isn't elgible and they did remove ZERO from office then Rubio would be inelgible. The establishment GOP doesn't want that to happen.
I read an article a few days ago that Ron Paul is going to be the winner of Ohio and Minnesota. That would put a new twist to things at the convention.
I still support Newt and there is a lot of uncommitted delegates out there.
With the help of God and a lot of P-----off people we can get this mess straightened out.
God Bless
-
Permalink Reply by WALTER KLUKSA on -
Ahem!!!! You are assuming if Obama gets reelected he wont seize power with his presidential decrees. If we still have a workable legeslative branch it will be a miracle.They will be ignored and decimated with accidents and other means. Let us not forget we are dealing with a sinister underhanded puppet, who will do anything to get his way.
-
Permalink Reply by E B Boyd on
-
I went to a Candidate Forum last night and found out something really interesting. Our legislature has the power to override any & all Executive Orders. Maybe we have not been asking the right questions from our candidates for the House & Senate. We all know that our representatives that are now presently serving in the Congress do not have the cajones to stand up to Obozo but we must start asking our candidates to see if they do.
-
Permalink Reply by Grace Kirby on
-
A conservative Congress will work only if Obama is defeated:
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Nicholson on
-
To help assure he gets re-elected, Odumbo is looting $8B from HHS to shore up Medicare until after the election, when Medicare Advantage reimbursement rates to health care providers will be drastically reduced as part of Odumbocare, resulting in providers refusing to participate in Medicare Advantage. That will force millions of seniors who currently have Medicare Advantage coverage into the other Medicare program, which has many gaps in coverage (the famous "doughnut hole"). I have contacted all 3 of my representatives to protest Odumbo's actions and recommend you do so, too. For more info about this, go to the below link to "Beat Obama PAC":
This PAC has good information, but charges to send messages to your reps. I recommend Congress.org as a free way to contact them.
-
Permalink Reply by Laura on
-
That's the key to slowly start turning things around - a conservative congress. Mitt is better than Obama but disappointing that he's probably the one we'll be stuck with but at least it's not Obama and Romney is more controllable. If Romney gets elected we'll be able to say "bye" "bye" to some of Obama's appointed "commies".
-
Permalink Reply by Larry Cumbie on -
I agree. In fact, I have maintained since '09 that winning a hopefully veto-proof Conservative majority in both Houses will guarantee that Congress will set the WH straight on any fiscal or foreign policy issue, REGARDLESS OF WHO IS PRESIDENT. It's high time that Congress got its cojones back. You can debate this to Hell and gone and I will still be right when you are out of breath. Key words: Conservative, fiscal, foreign policy, veto-proof. It renders a Liberal President helpless. It holds a Moderate President's feet to the fire on all key issues. The only thing I would not like about that scenario is both the Congress and the WH Conservative at the same time. One-party rule never works for long.
-
Permalink Reply by Grace Kirby on
-
You are too optimistic, and wrong. Obama does not care what the Congress does. He can, and does, rule by Executive Order. And it will only get worse if he is reelected. He is not a liberal, he is a socialist/communist/marxist who wants to 'fundamentally change' America. He wants to get rid of the Constitution. And he already does a good job of ignoring it. What you have maintained since "09 would work with ABO.
-
Permalink Reply by David S on
-
Judson, Having a Conservative Congress is critically important. we also need Congressional Leadership who have the guts to do what's necessary to turn back the Socialist tide and curtail government spending. We don't presnetly have it and it would require chane in leadership to accomplish that objective.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Combes on
-
Romney's history is that when the people indicate that he should move to the right, he does. He never moves left. So, get him in and then put on the pressure. He will respond. - p
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Curiel on
-
Stay informed America........
Subject: What does this word mean?
The word 'Dhimmitude" is found in the new health care bill;
so what does it mean?
Thought this was interesting and worth passing on.
Dhimmitude -- What does it mean?
Obama used it in the health care bill.
Now isn't this interesting?
It is used in the health care law.
Dhimmitude -- I had never heard the word until now. Type it into Google and start reading. Pretty interesting. It's on page 107 of the healthcarebill. I looked this up onGoogle and yep, it exists.. It is a REAL word.
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.
ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitudeand Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islamconsiders insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking", and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.
How convenient. So I, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhanwill have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de factogovernment insurance.
Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Dhimmitude.
I recommend sending this on to your contacts.
American citizens need to know about it -
-
Permalink Reply by Donald A. Richards on
-
Republicans are going to have a tough time hanging onto the seats they have now in the House with that idiot of a Speaker of the House hitting the weekend news shows with his claim that the Republicans have a 1 in 3 chance of losing control of the House this fall. With that surrender philosophy old John shows yet again what a spinless whimp he reallly is. He's one of the best weapons the Democrats have.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
