Jump to content
As always, this is all about the team making more money. More (and bigger) luxury boxes to sell. Plusher surroundings to justify higher ticket prices and higher concession prices. Anything (and everything) to make more bucks. Luckily, they are only hitting up taxpayers for $200 million (plus unspecified ancillary costs). As long as you avoid buying anything at a local hotel/motel, and avoid going to any games, you won't have to pay a dime.....
With unemployment still running at nearly 8%, can't we deport illegals back to their nation of origin? Maybe getting the illegals out of our workforce would help some of the rest of us find jobs. How about making e-Verify mandatory for all employers? Anybody who can't pass the e-Verify system gets fired or not hired. Then Romney's "self-deportation" might become a reality and us citizens can get on with the rest of our lives.
Obama can't spend a penny unless the Republican-controlled Congress passes an appropriations bill, so you can never hang the "spend" title on Obama alone. And lets not forget: if nothing passes now, then we get BOTH huge tax increases on ALL OF US plus massive spending cuts, equally divided between domestic and defense spending. Is that what you really want? If so, good luck with that! If not, then support Saxby Chambliss to get us to a better deal!
Romney has promised to limit federal spending to 20% of GDP. It is currently running at 24% of GDP. Cutting off 4% of GDP would result in the loss of about 6.3 million jobs (jobs supported by that spending, either directly or indirectly). However, Romney has also promised to increase defense spending to 4% of GDP, leaving only 16% of GDP for all remaining federal programs (including Social Security, Medicare, and everything else). It is presently running at about 21% of GDP, so the cut in non-defense spending would amount to 5% of GDP. (GDP is the annual value of all goods and services produced in the USA, and it is about equal to the national debt at about $16 trillion per year, meaning our debt is about 100% of GDP, which is considered to be a dangerous level.)
Meanwhile, Obama has been pressing Congress for about a 2-for-1 ratio between spending cuts and "revenue enhancements" (tax increases). Congress has refused to consider ANY "revenue enhancements," which leaves the Republican budget proposal in an totally impossible situation. Current tax revenues are only about 16% of GDP, and Romney wants to cut taxes even further. So, if Romney wants to balance the budget, he would need to cut spending down to about 13% of GDP if he actually cuts taxes by 20% from what they are now. That would cut federal spending by about 11% of GDP and result in the loss of about 19 million jobs that are funded either directly or indirectly by that spending.
So, both Romney and Obama have promised spending cuts to eventually balance the federal budget. Obama's plan is more practical. Romney's plan would leave the federal government unable to spend any money other than "entitlements" like Social Security and Medicare, and even they would have to be limited and/or cut to some degree to stay within the other parameters of his budget he has spoken about.
In my view, there is no way Romney can produce a balanced budget, and political pressure will result in additional huge budget deficits, particularly if Romney cuts taxes and fails to make far greater cuts in spending as we are already running a budget deficit of over $1 trillion per year.
Amen to that! BuzzG: How is a state-level "educational empire" supposed to be more beneficial to Gwinnett citizens than the local-level "educational empire" we have now? Sorry, but it makes a ton more sense to me to stick with local control. If you don't like what is going on, run for school board! if we turn control over to the state, good luck getting ANY changes made!
Personally I'm against the amendment because I believe in local control. Gwinnett schools should be controlled by Gwinnett citizens through our elected school board. I greatly resent the folks in Atlanta trying to take away local control!
With that said, I do not mind if Gwinnett schools uses some of my tax dollars to try and maintain local control of our schools. They certainly have MY permission!
So these folks are OK with men who have multiple wives and concubines on the side because those sorts of families are part of the Bible? I think we've evolved beyond the libertine concept of "Biblical Families."
The main reason for our current economic mess is that over the past 50 years BOTH Republicans and Democrats have conspired to let corporations ship 20 million good-paying US jobs overseas to Japan, Korea, China, India, and other Asian nations. So, while I agree with your opening 2 paragraphs, voting for Romney (who has actively participated in the shipment of good-paying US jobs to Asia) would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Romney has also lied about cutting spending down to 20% of GDP because he knows if he does that, 6.3 million more US workers will be unemployed and the US will head into a major depression. We need to focus on fixing our trade policies, but neither Romney nor Obama will promise to do that because they both depend on money from the 1% to get elected.
Jan: I'm with you. I'm voting NO because I don't want the state to be able to force local taxpayers (i.e., me) to fund charter schools with no local control. Local control has been the touchstone of the USA's educational system since the founding. I do not want either Washington or Atlanta mandating what happens to my tax money!
NOTE: "... with the intent to make another person believe it is real." Did he really do something to "make another person believe it is real?" Not from what I've read so far...
Last login: Sunday, April 7, 2013