Stratford - Christopher Shays, Republican candidate for United States Senate, released this statement on today's second quarter GDP report.
"Today's report from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis on the economy's anemic second quarter growth of just 1.5% shows an economy being suffocated by the Obama Administration and the Federal Reserve.
The President's massive tax increases scheduled for January 1 are causing businesses to hold off on investment, therefore stunting productivity.
Real GDP growth at only 1.5% means no job growth at all, and this will only get worse as we approach Obama's "Taxmageddon" on January 1.
If our economy had grown at 1.6% over our entire history, right now our GDP would be only about $190 billion, rather than $15.5 trillion. Instead of having the world’s #1 economy, we would be #49. And we would not have won WWII and the Cold War.
We must achieve 4% real economic growth, which is historically normal for America.
President Obama has had three years to reverse our economic downturn and has failed to lead America in the right direction. He is focused on the wrong issues and continues to neglect the importance of economic growth.
The only way to get people back to work is by sending the right Senators to Washington to put our nation on a new path to prosperity. Chris Murphy’s record of partisan support for Nancy Pelosi’s and President Obama’s broken policies is not the right path. Linda McMahon has no experience and lacks the understanding of the issues to make any significant changes.
We need to send a Senator from Connecticut with the experience to fix this problem. I have the knowledge, experience and guts to hit the ground running on day one, roll up my sleeves and help restore sanity to Washington."
"We" are not the government. Government is instituted. As an institution, it has no morals, only people/persons have morals. This isn't a minor point.
"Those of you on the far right are repeating the same arguments that were used in the late 19th and early 20th century." Maria Giannuzzi 1:07 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012; "My arguments and those of many progressives come from Jesus Christ, Buddha, Ghandi, Dickens and many other religious leaders, writers, and activists." Maria Giannuzzi 2 hours ago; "Why don't we give Jesus Christ a break? He doesn't live in 21st century America. " Maria Giannuzzi 1 hour ago : "What would Christ do if ..."
Provide a proven alternative.
If there are a few lessons from the good book(Bible), treat all people the same; the world will always have the poor and unfortunate; It is our personal responsibility to take care of our brothers, and it is not the governments responsibility if you want to look at the good book and use it in your arguing of points.
It does not say he should have a harder time before Malloy or Obama, now does it, unless you are elevating them to God status....
Could it be the opposite? To say that most of us our moral and ethical is to also admit that some of us are not. If some of "we the people" are not "moral and ethical" how can we be sure where it is they wind up? Why couldn't it be that this is the class that "carries over into our government" and how do we know? Isn't to declare one way or the other is to presume to have some kind of super-natural vision? This is exactly why we should NOT trust government. There is no way to see through men's hearts when they are on the campaign trails. Maria, you are right, the politicians are cut of the same clothe as the rest of us and that's the problem. Some are good, some are rotten, but there is one thing that has not yet been accounted for in this equation, power. One doesn't need supernatural vision to see that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and this principle we can not just dismiss or ignore, it's time tested and proven. And, it is this reason government needs to be held down, checked, and severely limited (the reason for the Bill of Rights & Const.) Unfortunately, when men get positions of power, they tend to wield that power, and wielding power leads to corruption. There is only one solution, and it is not offering ourselves completely over to government, it is just the opposite, shrink and reduce it's power so it can ONLY do LESS, not more harm. If most "we the people" are moral ethical, then we should have little to worry about, right?
If you can't run with the big dogs, you should stay on the porch and just bark.
The following is not meant to be sexist. Our forefathers gave people* the right to vote based upon a simple consideration. The people* would consider the candidates and their respective positions and the after thoughtful deliverance would choose the candidate who for their own selfish interest would represent them best in any elected office. Politicians were not professionals so they would return to their lives on the farms, offices or factories. They were temporary statesmen that assisted in the operation of a LIMITED government. This is what our fore fathers contemplated. Fast forward 200+ years and we have an electorate that is broader more inclusive yet less thoughtful. They are swayed by negative ads that do not allow the candidates to say what they will do, just how bad the other guy is. We have voters that think a party has a lock on wisdom and that presume the respective party puts up the best candidates and votes the party line. This simply implies someone else is smarter than the individual voter and allows those others to make that decision for them. This is not the way the Founding fathers contemplated the process, (read paragraph #1).
Today the political apparatchik controls the process, more so on the Democratic side because of clear and continued success that fosters arrogance and complacency and top down choices. Any party in control for too long is bad government. The big difference is that Democrats want to make change, and that often means more programs, and more programs often means more chances for corruption. Republicans in power for too long might have the same issues. Corruption is not always monetary and not limited to politics. Look at the cat fight in the 5th district among the Democrats. A career politician in the midst of a corruption scandal, sorry he is innocent, and where there is smoke… A candidate that has a spouse that seems to have gotten consideration from Government… and another that is deeply connected to a Washington Lobbyist firm. The Democrats have 3 bad choices. The arrogance of the party is portrayed in this race. All three have baggage, and yet the Democrats feel they are assured victory. In some races the most incompetent candidate is put up and elected because of political reasons, not because the voters made an educated considered choice.
We need to reconsider the Taxable Wage Base (SSI limitation), unless we scrap FICA taxes for a flat tax. Also no Earned Income Tax Credit, it is a well known fraud vehicle. We need a flat - no deductions - tax with no more than 3 steps and no cliffs. A lowered business tax. It needs to match international business tax standards for repatriation of profits. Remember businesses DO NOT PAY TAXES. The tax is inherently included in the price of the things YOU buy and PAY for. We need to consider Medicare and Social Security. We know SSI is a Ponzi scheme and it will fail with the ‘baby boomers’. Medicare will continue to greatly expand. As I said everyone MUST feel the sacrifice. We need a President and Congress that can make real change and with an eye to ALL our citizens and all generations. We need to consider immigration and go back to support, by sponsors, of immigrant families. No government assistance for the first 5 years, with the exception of education, as it is a true equalizer. We need to institute a singular language in the US. Yes that is English. Businesses and non government entities can do what they want. To do otherwise will relegate some group to second class citizenship, either the Spanish or other language speakers today, or the English speakers tomorrow. Cancel Obamacare and enact low to no cost reforms. Also no new programs until the budget is balanced! I can go on….
However one item will get the ire of all conservatives and liberals. The government has huge outlays already. If we keep the status quo, we are short of funds. To think otherwise is intellectual dishonesty. The budget MUST be balanced! If we make cuts it will require drastic reductions in ALL entitlement programs and general government spending. If we keep all entitlements and lop off the rest of government, then we still do not balance the budget. If we lop off all of Medicare we will not balance the budget. If we lop off all of SSI we will not balance the budget. So what is the solution? We need to do BOTH! The Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich, but they can’t answer what is enough?… The Republicans want to lower taxes, but what is low enough? We need to stop all new programs until we get the basic government in balance and that means dump Obamacare because we have no idea how to pay for it. Also consider that the best idea would be for the government to borrow the funds in year #1 and take all receipts that year and bank them. Then in year #2 spend only the amount received in year #1. That would require borrowing for year #1, but also put government under strict spending controls. Can't spend what you do not have right! Remember any increases in taxes would have no effect until they had been collected a year or two later. Would the State Legislature be able to do the same?
This is the 'debate as an etch-a-sketch' technique.
Me, my children or my grandchildren are not accountable to you, or the crooked politicians that stole and borrowed and printed money like it was nothing. Believe me, I never voted for any of them because I WON'T GIVE THEM MY SANCTION but those who voted for them did. There is a big problem here, and it is theft, pure and simple, and to believe that we should all pay for this is ridiculous. You all vote for the neighborhood crook to be nightwatchman and he steals your tv and you want me and my children to pay for it???? What arrogance. What nonsense. Are you all brainwashed? The Federal Reserve in cahoots with all the lying politicians since 1913 have committed a crime, and to think otherwise is to have your head in the sand or someplace worse. This righteousness about taxing the "rich" is just extending the theft & the immorality further. The "rich" won't pay anyway, it will be me and my children who'll pay. Davey Crockett said it better than me, and if you disagree with me, you should all read/watch this; http://youtu.be/uoEJ-D2bgc0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Yours_to_Give
If you want change you need to reverse these step by step. I am just opening a dialog on a rational set of changes that can be debated. These changes will set us up to roll back some of the largess. The steps I am promoting are one we ALL should be able to live with. If you have a better idea then let us all know.
So true. The laws were written so that the media may not make any changes to political ads. Some can see the danger of allowing someone to censor political free speech. The fact check we see in the media is not without some prejudice. The Susan Bysiewicz ads about Murphy are factually incorrect (I believe he is the #4 beneficiary of Wall Street contributions vs #1), So #4 is better than #1? The second element is it is "Wall Street" funds, yet the funds come from "Wall Street" and Hedge Funds that John Q. Public perceives as "Wall Street". Semantics. So the ad is not factually accurate, however spiritually it is accurate. Now the interesting thing is why would Murphy get these funds? He is a Democrat that wants to regulate the Street more (I presume). He is not on a committee with financial industry oversight. Just something to think about. Also note most of Wall Street are big Democrat supporters and many have places in the 5th District.
Anyone who believes that we can tax (the rich) our way out of this might as well just say "let's not change a darn thing." How can taxing the rich ever really fix gigantic tangled mess ($16 Trillion Debt=U.S. GNP)? Why would the rich ever pay when they don't have to? And, how can you ever force them to pay, they make the rules?! It ain't no accident that GE CEO Immelt is Obama's #1 economic advisor & Timothy "Goldman Sachs" Geithner is his Secretary of the Treasury? And, if things every got to hot for the rich (which it won't) they'll just take their money and their jobs and scram. See, the rich realize this ain't their tab to pick up. It ain't mine or anybody's children's either. This money was stolen. If you want it paid back then you need to go find the crooks. You can find them easily, they're on the ballot every November. Finally there are these false philanthropists who hide behind a sickening phony facade of selflessness and caring for others but in the reality, they know only one trick, using force against their neighbors to steal more to feed the beast. And, the cycle continues. We put another pig head on a stick for the beast. But, hasn't the beast had enough already? Where does this stop? The paradigm must be changed and there needs to be a new way of thinking and continuing with this insanity is not the answer. http://youtu.be/NkEtArDFNYA