Our View: An open letter to Tuesday's election winners

Election 2012

Click here for coverage of this year's races and issues.

Editorial Board, August through January 2012

  • Scott Stanford, general manager
  • Brent Boyer, editor
  • Tom Ross, reporter
  • Shannon Lukens, community representative
  • Scott Ford, community representative

Contact the editorial board at 970-871-4221 or editor@SteamboatToday.com. Would you like to be a member of the board? Fill out a letter of interest now.

An open letter to the winning candidates from Tuesday’s general election:

Congratulations on your hard-fought win last night. You and your opponent presented different visions of governance on a number of issues important to voters, and those voters ultimately entrusted you to lead them at the local, state or national level.

But please don’t mistake your victory as a mandate to cater to the extremes of your political party. What we saw instead was an electorate almost evenly divided in the candidates it chose to fulfill its vision of the future. What they need are leaders prepared to get things done at every level of government, and that means a renewed spirit of bipartisanship and compromise. Americans of all stripes are fed up with the political status quo, and we can ill afford the same partisan gridlock that would halt meaningful progress during the course of your term.

Despite the closely contested elections, there are a number of things most Americans feel strongly about and on which you must focus during your next term. Citizens want reasonable taxes, and we want local, state and federal governments to spend our tax dollars efficiently. That means providing essential services and prudently maintaining infrastructure necessary to support the economy while aggressively pursuing debt reduction.

Elected officials must be honest and accountable to the people they represent. Government at all levels must be open and transparent. Never forget that the people who bend your ears often have special interests, while the vast majority of your constituents don’t. Stop giving undue influence to those with the time or means to pressure your policy decisions.

If you’re a newcomer to elected office, be prepared for a steep learning curve. Put in the requisite time and effort to understand the needs of the people you were elected to represent. Develop a deep understanding of the issues important to your constituency, and seek out opinions from those who think differently from the way you do. And always be clear about where you stand, even knowing that all of your decisions likely will upset at least some of your constituents.

Finally, remember that Routt County, Colorado and the United States are only as good as the people who lead them and set their direction forward. There are many critical issues facing our county, state and nation as 2013 draws near, and you were chosen to speak for all of us in addressing those hurdles. Accept that responsibility with the respect it demands, or be prepared to find a new job in four short years.

Community comments

Note: The Steamboat Pilot & Today doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.

(Scott Wedel) Scott_Wedel says...

"What we saw instead was an electorate almost evenly divided in the candidates it chose to fulfill its vision of the future."

Did you all bother to look at the local election results before writing that?

Routt County did not support a single Republican. Monger won big. Corrigan and Mitsh Bush won with comfortable margins. Scott Tipton won the election despite losing Routt County.

Posted 7 November 2012, 8:47 a.m. Suggest removal

(rhys jones) highwaystar says...

I'm just surprised that two such widely divergent viewpoints can each garner so much support, demonstrating just how divided this country really is.

Posted 7 November 2012, 10 a.m. Suggest removal

(Scott Wedel) Scott_Wedel says...

And despite local law enforcement unified opposition and editorials from this news paper, mj legalization won big in Routt County 8,083 to 4,752.

Posted 7 November 2012, 10:45 a.m. Suggest removal

(Bob Smith) bsmith_steamboat says...

"And despite local law enforcement unified opposition..." I’m not so sure Scott. Of course you’ve got Garrett Wiggins and his clique, which are obviously opposed to 64, but for the majority of other officers on the force, I would beg to differ. The problem is that if an officer voices anything other than the Wiggins party line of NO WAY on the legalization issue, they are seriously jeopardizing their career. This is common throughout the greater law enforcement community. Mention anything that can be construed as pro-legalization, and forget about any kind of promotion or anything else – and be ready to be stigmatized in a very negative way. One-on-one, and most certainly off the record, I have found that many officers support legalization. It’s too bad that they – collectively and individually – have been intimidated into silence – and not just silence, but forced to support the NO WAY position. Job security, plain and simple.

Posted 7 November 2012, 12:08 p.m. Suggest removal

(Scott Wedel) Scott_Wedel says...

The head of every law enforcement dept in the valley came out in opposition. They were prominently quoted in the newspaper.

In terms of advising voters, it makes no difference if there were individual officers with opposing views. Or even if these dept leaders didn't personally believe what they were saying. Fact remains that the heads of local law enforcement strongly urged voting against legalization.

And the voters resoundingly ignored them.

Someone qualified in law enforcement that would like to be Sheriff could look at the local voting pattern and realize that running as a Democrat is a pretty favorable path. Wiggins has not moderated his views to adjust to the electorate and would be vulnerable to a challenger.

Posted 7 November 2012, 12:39 p.m. Suggest removal

(Harry Thompson) shocked says...

Gee Scott, Sheriff Wiggins hasn't even been arrested for drinking and driving or wrecked his patrol vehicle. He hasn't asked the taxpayers to pay for his legal defense while he fights with the commissioners.

You are really to much!

Posted 7 November 2012, 5:20 p.m. Suggest removal

(Scott Wedel) Scott_Wedel says...

And someone vaguely matching your description barely lost. Some Democrat with reasonable law enforcement background that can avoid being arrested would be expected to win in this county.

Posted 7 November 2012, 6:52 p.m. Suggest removal

(jerry carlton) jlc says...

Scott Wedel Maybe you should run for Sheriff?

Posted 7 November 2012, 8:18 p.m. Suggest removal

(mark hartless) markhartless says...

Considering the support for the previous sheriff, who was a drunk driver, and considering the general mental state of the electorate, I would imagine that a two-bit circus monkey could be expected to win (sheriff) in this county, so long as it has it's hands over its ears, eyes, or had a bong to it's mouth.

Posted 7 November 2012, 9:59 p.m. Suggest removal

(rhys jones) highwaystar says...

"general mental state of the electorate"? Yeah, the right-wing extremist minority is so much more "in the know" than the majority; they must have a corner on knowledge. I'd suggest you get over it.

Posted 8 November 2012, 8:04 a.m. Suggest removal

(rhys jones) highwaystar says...

Below is a link to two maps, red-and-blue, election results. One is your traditional U.S. geographical map, the other is adjusted for population. Be they smart or dumb, it reveals where the power is:


Posted 8 November 2012, 8:21 a.m. Suggest removal

(bill schurman) expublicdefender says...

Dear The TODAY & PILOT, you and yours LOST, please do not tell those who won what to do. "To the victors goes the spoils"

Posted 8 November 2012, 12:27 p.m. Suggest removal

(Bob Smith) bsmith_steamboat says...

interesting rhys.


i bet there is a correlation to IQ !! seriously! (and you all know what i mean here -- no need to verbalize the specifics -- bahahahah)

Posted 8 November 2012, 4:07 p.m. Suggest removal

(mark hartless) markhartless says...

Once upon a time there was an insane asylum.

It had 100 patients, 12 full-time doctors, 6 part-time doctors, 24 nurses, 17 security officers and 5 grounds-keepers and maintenance workers.

One day the patients were given an equal say about the operation of the facility.
After voting, they proceeded to ransak the facility, destroying most of the equipment, sending the staff fleeing for their safety, and ultimately burning the entire place to the ground.

They were last heard chanting "to the victor goes the spolis" and talking about how the IQ of those in the padded rooms certainly exceeded that of the doctors and staff...

Posted 8 November 2012, 6:23 p.m. Suggest removal

(rhys jones) highwaystar says...

Bob -- Nice expansion on the theme. I find it interesting that the red areas correspond almost exactly to rural regions, while the blue represents population centers -- a microcosm we see demonstrated even in this county. Not to suggest one is smarter than the other -- HAR HAR HAR!!

Posted 8 November 2012, 7:28 p.m. Suggest removal

(John Weibel) jweibel says...

Gee, rhys, maybe your rants about the fed, its ability to create money, the tax advantages to mechanize facilities and all the other wonders that consolidate people into tiny geographic regions, giving rise to ultra wealthy and poor.

The wealthy want the hand outs for the pet projects the national endowment for the arts, et al.. The poor want their welfare as they are entitled to those things and gosh darn it the wealthy should pay for it, no matter that the wealthy are simply the middle class.

Yep, those IQ's and rural regions, might just be that our schools, based upon the current paradigms rewards for moving out of a rural area as the stock market makes it hard for local food systems to come about, tax advantages of using technology to do work and a myriad of other factors that people fail to realize.

The best thing about the outcome of the election is all the wonderful comments about how bad the republicans are, nice to see gracious winners, who might actually listen to what others have to say.

Wait a second, I forgot people in rural areas have low IQ's and should just submit to the wishes of those with high IQ's. Seems quite like the cast system and gosh darn it, maybe those people with high IQ's, who are more athletic, articulate should all be given handicaps so that others who may not be as blessed as them can survive is this world. I suppose all those government planners with their high IQ's will lead us all to the promised land, I guess I'll just wait for them to lead me there.

The arrogance of equating rural with a low IQ is astounding and a reflection upon the real vision of how many who vote dem feel that we the people are too stupid to make quality decisions for ourselves. We can not determine that if we build a leed house so tight that it requires an air exchange system, that it might have been better to build a house not so air tight and use a geothermal heat exchange system - more energy efficient and less costly - but not the current mainstream eco thought process.

The real battle is the individual vs the collective. Some day soon we might not be able to decide what to eat for ourselves as the government planners know better than us as they are "edukated" and have a high IQ.

Posted 8 November 2012, 10:43 p.m. Suggest removal

(Michelle Hale) Chelley6 says...

"Obama won 60 percent of the 18 to 29 year old vote and 52 percent of the 30-40 vote. He won 69 percent of the vote in big cities and 58 percent of the vote in mid-sized cities. He won 93 percent of the black vote and more than 70 percent of both the Asian vote and the Hispanic vote. He won over half of the female vote. And he won 76 percent of the gay, lesbian and bisexual vote.

Mitt Romney won the white vote, the male vote, the elderly vote, the small cities vote and the high-income vote. Thats a small piece of this nation, and getting smaller every day. Small more as a state of mind than anything else.

The base of Democratic support in this country is expanding. The Republican base is shrinking, becoming more racially homogenous, more rural and older. The GOP is about promotion of the rich, fear, anti-choice, WAR, and sometimes outright hate. They are nothing more than talking head for FOX News. By the way FOX News in on record for going to court in 2004, and fighting over the right to "tell lies." Oh, and they won!

Republicans are trying to hold back a storm surge of demographic change with a white picket fence. Good luck with that! We are a nation of many colors, many religions, many people who embrace fairness for all. Oh, and that IS what this country was built upon.

I might also add, that there is a large portion of the USA that is sick to death of the Religious Right pushing their belief into our Government. Seperations of Church and State was placed in our Constitution by our founding fathers for a reason. I find it odd that the idea of love, kindness, compassion, acceptance, and sharing has fell in every other place but the Chirstian Right. It is my personal thought, that if a Church wants to wade in on our political system, its time they loose they tax shelter, and pay their fair share like the rest of us. Oh, and 70% of the religious right also voted for Romney.

Our founding fathers put in place FREEDOM. Freedom to be happy, to use your land as you see fit, and pursue happiness. Freedom of and from religion. As for the GOP I am going to leave a quote: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is the merger of State and corporate power." ~Benito Mussolini~ Under the GOP, and Bush that is what has taken place. Corporations have been given the same rights as individuals, and individual rights have faded. Maybe we can hope that this has been a message sent out loud and clear. We all belong to each other, but we also need to embrace, and respect the simple rights, and the foundation of our Constitution. To be happy, be open about who we are, rights of choice with our body, our land, our food.

Posted 9 November 2012, 3:40 a.m. Suggest removal

(rhys jones) highwaystar says...

I apologize if my last post implied that anybody is any better than anybody else, which is certainly not the case. It was merely a reaction to the suggestion that the vocal minority is somehow privy to special knowledge that the general populace is not. I can understand how they might feel threatened, as the Dems try to get them to pay their fair share, so they squawk loudly to protect what they worked so hard to inherit.

Posted 9 November 2012, 9:29 a.m. Suggest removal

(Bob Smith) bsmith_steamboat says...

Well when you see such a push for Intelligent Design, combined with the complete denial of our part in global climate change...we have a problem

Posted 9 November 2012, 10:46 a.m. Suggest removal

(Scott Wedel) Scott_Wedel says...

Mark Ruckman,
Well, often the people with the strongest opinions are the least suited to government.

Politics is said to be the art of compromise and I am not so interested in compromise. My background is mathematics which is about getting it right and not about coming to a compromise on an acceptable answer. I do recognize that there can be multiple valid solutions for a problem, but you cannot use wishful thinking to replace facts and logic.

I doubt I could win election to any office unless the problems were so severe that people saw a need to cut through a lot of garbage to put things back to an acceptable normal.

Posted 9 November 2012, 6:47 p.m. Suggest removal

(mark hartless) markhartless says...

Top 1% earns 18% of the income and pays 27% of the taxes. (not inherits, but earns)
Of course, that's not "fair" enough for the parasite class.

I understand the greed of the parasite class.
I understand the envy, the jealousy.
I undersatnd the widespread economic ignorance.
I understand the desire to pull down the rich, to "punish" them.

But what I can not, for all my trying, even begin to comprehend, is why the parasites think the "rich folks" will sit here and take it.
Why do the parasites not understand that one of the things rich people buy with their "inheritance" is plane tickets... ONE WAY plane tickets.
Why do the parasites think the rich are going to stay here in America give them their money when they can just wing off to Costa Rica, etc?????
Personally, even if I couldn't leave (and I can) I'd sooner BURN mine than give it to the moochers.

Posted 9 November 2012, 7:05 p.m. Suggest removal

(rhys jones) highwaystar says...

Oh no, say it ain't so. Speaking for the (mostly) silent majority, we're sure going to miss your sparkling repartee. Really, what's stopping you? You're obviously unhappy here. Don't let the boarding ramp contact your backside, and bon voyage!!

Posted 9 November 2012, 7:39 p.m. Suggest removal

(rhys jones) highwaystar says...

PS -- Please treat the flight attendants with respect, even though they are of the working class. This plea is in vain, I fear, as you missed a class in basic human respect.

Posted 9 November 2012, 8:01 p.m. Suggest removal

(rhys jones) highwaystar says...

I'm fourth-generation Colorado, can document back to 1871 and we were here before that... Grandpa surveyed much of the Western Slope for Public Service power lines, after CU Law school... yet none of my forefathers had the foresight to get the Calvary to chase some Utes away so they could put up a fence and call it theirs... so now I can't tell everybody how to live their lives. They must have been Democrats, more into sharing than grabbing.

Posted 9 November 2012, 8:27 p.m. Suggest removal

(mark hartless) markhartless says...

My dog is fourth generation Colorado too.
So what?

Please don't make me laugh with your BS stories of how your magnonimity let you dwell peacefully with the natives. You now advocate for the plundering of your fellow countrymen. All the BS tripe about how your past generations got along with the Utes is irrelevant.
Who are you kidding? Government isn't about "sharing" Government is force. And you stand in full support of using that force to force "rich people" to "share"?
That's the stupidest thing I've heard you say in 5 or 10 minutes.
"Forcing people to share"... Funny.
Say that 3 times while clicking your bongs together and you might get back home, Dorthy.

Posted 9 November 2012, 10:20 p.m. Suggest removal

(rhys jones) highwaystar says...

Costa Rica is crying for your presence.

Posted 9 November 2012, 11:19 p.m. Suggest removal

(rhys jones) highwaystar says...

I gave 'em a call, and it seems you are more popular there than here (they hadn't heard of you yet) they said Sure, send him down, we just LOVE pretentious and self-important rednecks.

Posted 9 November 2012, 11:32 p.m. Suggest removal

(mark hartless) markhartless says...

Important? Never said or thought I was.

Redneck? Guilty as charged.

Pretentious: Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc, than is actually possesed.
Hmmm, let's see... that "I'm fourth generation Colorado...back to 1871... forefathers more into sharing than grabbing" sounds a lot like pretentiousness to me.

Now here is something pretentious for you so you can feel good about calling me pretentious... Ready? My father got along real well with the indians too. Know why? He WAS one.

Now, back to my point.
And forget about me, I'm nobody.
Seriously, here's the question... Ready?
What are you gonna do, from whom are you gonna plunder when those evil rich bastards ALL go down to Costa Rica, or wherever???
Do you think they are gonna just sit still and let you, through government force, take their property? Do you really think that? Seriously?

Posted 10 November 2012, 8:32 a.m. Suggest removal

(mark hartless) markhartless says...

Last time you asked me a question I tried to answer it openly and honestly.
Will you now return the favor?
I have a question concerning global climate change for you.
Here goes:
The Thames River in southern England used to freeze over regularly in the 17th and 18th century. The last time it froze over was 1814.
Since then the climate has been too warm for it to freeze.
Why and how did the climate warm so as to stop the river from freezing LONG BEFORE industrialization?

Continuing with the question:
The period of history between the 16th and 19th century has been called "The Little Ice-Age".
An historical example of climate change during this period some call the "MWP, orMedieval Warm Period" tells of how Erik the Red and others were forced to migrate from Iceland to Greenland due to the climate change that happened in the 1500's.

Neither reduced solar activity, increased volcanic activity, nor changes in the oceans circulation are man-caused events, especially since the population was insignificant. So how did these 3 factors, which scientists agree were likely contributors, happen and why couldn't the same kinds of things NOT be happening today?
Why couldn't natural forces, which caused climate change in the past, NOT be responsible for climate change today??
How do you know and why would you think, apart from succumbing to propaganda, that man is today causing what nature is widely recognized to have caused regularly in the past?

Posted 10 November 2012, 9:08 a.m. Suggest removal

(rhys jones) highwaystar says...

You're not gone YET?? More lies, promises broken. We thought you'd at least be over Texas by now. Yet the malodorous tripe continues to eminate from your fingers. Get outta Dodge, the sooner the better, and one-way, PLEASE.

The problem with your angles is acute, as they are obtuse, while being less than right. Oh I forgot; you probably graduated from Hayden, so I'll type slowly: O-B-T-U-S-E. We'll give you a minute to Google it, and thus compose a half-witty comeback.

While this has been as much fun as knocking down sandhill cranes in a penny arcade, I've tired of this conversation, as there is nothing new but the same old crybaby song. Boo hoo, the parasites gonna get it all. Yeah snatch up your marbles and go play somewhere else. PLEASE. It's just gonna get worse, bud, the leeches are gonna bleed you dry. Best get out while you can.

The shots are free now, so rejoin us with your wit, Professor, I've got better things to do.

Posted 10 November 2012, 9:11 a.m. Suggest removal

(rhys jones) highwaystar says...

When you get to Costa Rica, please report back on the rising oceans for us, okay? These observations should cover a lengthy period. No cheating. NOW the floor is yours.

Posted 10 November 2012, 9:24 a.m. Suggest removal

(Scott Wedel) Scott_Wedel says...

Funny statistics
11 of the 12 states with the highest average household income voted Democratic.
12 of the 13 states with the lowest average household income voted Republican.

The 12 states with the highest average per capita income voted Democratic.
15 of the 16 states with the lowest average per capita income voted Republican.

That does not appear to support the Republican narrative that they cannot win due to all the "parasites".

Posted 10 November 2012, 12:08 p.m. Suggest removal

(mark hartless) markhartless says...

So you have no answer for my questions. Figured.
Nor a response to my assertion that you, MR "I'm from the military and my family got along with indians for generations, bla, bla bla"..., are also quite pretentious...
And the oceans are not rising. Obama stopped that single-handedly.

I didn't know that was the republican narrative.
It is mine, though, and I'm a libertarian.
As far as your stats go, like the old saying "there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.
Not all parasites are poor. Remember "corporate welfare"???

Posted 10 November 2012, 5:55 p.m. Suggest removal

(Steve Lewis) lewi says...

Do you have a link to those statistics? I'd like to read about them. On one hand it makes sense that the lower incomes are hungry for the economic promises of the right, but on the other hand one would think the red states would have delivered better household incomes, over time.

Posted 10 November 2012, 8:58 p.m. Suggest removal

(John Weibel) jweibel says...

Better household incomes are relative you know. The cost of living in rural areas are generally far lower than in cities - the blue areas - where the disparity in incomes is the greatest.

Mark, a question for you on taxes. What percentage of income does the top 1% pay and if it is lower than the next 49% there is something wrong - which I would guess there is. The fair tax seems the best solution to our problems we face today.

Here is a great example of the government planners ensuring that the world is how they think it should be. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Coll...

Got to love those individuals out there ensuring we all do it right, even if they might have made a mistake themselves. A great example being the saturated fat argument that seems to be losing much of the support it once had as being bad for us. Modern research is proving this logic wrong, it probably was someones manipulating data to help move all the extra low fat products, like skim milk my father in law used to pour down the drain at the creamery he worked at - such a waste on farm it would have become feed for other animals.

Posted 11 November 2012, 11:42 a.m. Suggest removal

(Scott Wedel) Scott_Wedel says...


You have to look up the voting results to get the statistics I posted.

What is fair is not comparing how much the top 1% pay compared to some other percent without the context of how much wealth is contained in that top 1%. If the top 1% owned like 37% of the nation's wealth then they might be expected to pay more than the bottom 80% of the population that owned 12% of the nation's wealth.

I think it is possible to say it is wonderful that some people are doing great and to say the people with the most money pay more taxes than people with less money.

Posted 11 November 2012, 1:20 p.m. Suggest removal

(Michelle Hale) Chelley6 says...

If you look at the world bank there are some facts that I find sad and shocking. The Rothchilds own 3/4 of the worlds wealth. Second is the Rockerfeller. Third is Price Alweed,(main money behind Murdox and Fox News....hates Americans by the way) Now how can anyone say that kind of wealth is OK with so many in this world have nothing? One in five children in this nation go hungery every day. One in four once a week. Its been this way for the past 10 years. How is that OK? Do we not belong to each other? When did COMPASSION and doing right by and for each other become wrong? The GOP is about Greed, and Control. They have also stepped into the non-logic part of the world. They are pro choice, until a child is born. They are against welfare unless is it Corporate Well fair. They are against the jobs bill that can help those in need up. They are against the Vets bill, but want more money for war and the promotion of war in Iran. The Grand Old Party is being seen as off base, closed mind, greed filled, power hunger party that they are. Time to back up, rethink go from our heads back into our heart. In every religion there is a comparable saying.... As you do for the least of me, you also do unto me. We all belong to each other, we all share the same home...earth. That is a place where we need to start.

Posted 11 November 2012, 3:34 p.m. Suggest removal

(mark hartless) markhartless says...

Sorry, I dont exactly follow your question, John.

From Scott:
"If the top 1% owned 37% of the nations wealth then they might be expected to pay more than the bottom 80%...
And there we go folks, right straight toward a wealth tax, added of course, onto the income tax.

Tell me why someone who HAS more wealth should be taxed more.
If you have wealth it might be because you saved and invested while someone else pissed their money away, no?
Standing back looking at the middle or end of someones life and saying "they are wealthy so they should have paid more" says nothing about their conduct throughout their life, whether that life was wasteful, or frugal.
But never mind, either way, if you are wealthy you are in the cross-hairs now.

Posted 11 November 2012, 4:38 p.m. Suggest removal

(John Weibel) jweibel says...

Romney paid 15% in taxes last year while most who earned a regular paycheck paid more than that.

Michelle, Both parties are manipulated by those that you decry. Maybe there are some who think that the rest of us belong to them and should serve them.

The whole GOP - Dem issue really is there to divide the populace. The issues that we face today are much the same as they have been for thousands of years. The leaders leaders seek control and power, they have no idea as to what a just society would be. The founding principles of this country brought about the closest example to that, that there ever has been.

Most would agree with your points, your delivery is about dividing the population and not uniting it. The Dems story simply routes money to your Rothchilds in a different fashion. Personally, those who actually write the legislation that either party votes upon do not have the best interest of the country at heart and really the only party that makes sense is the Libertarian party if you can get past the lunatic fringe that espouses that drinking gasoline should be allowed as the only person you are hurting is yourself, does not take into account your health from doing such.

The person pushing for auditing the fed, owned by those you list above, the most has been a republican.

Posted 11 November 2012, 4:55 p.m. Suggest removal

(mark hartless) markhartless says...

You seem woefully, woefully ignorant of why wealth exists, why it is important to have opportunity to get wealth, what wealth does while it is being accumulated, and after.

Rockerfeller, for example, brought cheap oil to the masses. This probably saved the whales from extinction. Ford gave the masses cheap cars so they could get to and from as quickly as the wealthy.
What if these people had never bothered because you were there, waiting in the wings just to take their profit? You would be responsible for the extinction of the whales, no???
Has Bill Gates or Steve Jobs improved lives on "our world"? Look at all the $$$$ Gates gives to help the poor. Had you been there stifeling him he might have said "to hell with it" and the whole world would be WORSE OFF, not better. Can you not see that?

Greed, and the wealth it creates through capitalism (not crony capitalism), has fed way, way more hungry children than charity or taxation ever will.
Do you think there are vegetables and other foods on the grocery store shelves because the growers thought "gee, we ought to send some food up to Steamboat so our fellow human-being Michelle won't go hungry"???
NO, Michelle. It is there because the producers of that food want your money, and they are willing to provide you with something of value that you need in order to get that money.

And if all those children are hungry why do we have such an obesity epidemic? Can't have BOTH calamities at once Michelle. Which one must we be over-taxed to solve today? I think you are naieve to believe there is a serious epidemic of hunger in America, but stick around, it is comming.

"Do we not belong to each other?" No we do not. I am an autonomous human being. If you want to be "owned" by others that's your prerogative, but the absolute foolishness of that statement, and the pandoras box of human suffering to which that thought process leads can not be overstated..

"Compassion" is you doing good with that which is YOUR'S. When you seek to mandate that action in others you are promoting slavery, which I doubt you would even recognize if it smacked you in the face.

You are right about corporate welfare. It is just as wrong as individual welfare and should be stopped.

Finally, the most naieve of all your accusations it to think that all those greedy, un-compassionate, dishonest people operate only on one side of the pollitical aisle. There are far too many of them, but to suggest that the republican party houses all the evil politicians in America is utter foolishness.

Posted 11 November 2012, 5:15 p.m. Suggest removal

(mark hartless) markhartless says...

Romney paid CAPITAL GAINS taxes, the "others" of whom you speak paid INCOME taxes. Apples/ Oranges, John.
When Romney (or anyone else) earns INCOME he pays INCOME tax rates.
When Romney (or anyone else) earns CAPITAL GAINS, he pays CAPITAL GAINS rates.
And Romney didn't MAKE the rule, he's just following it.
Really a dishonest argument.
Greed and envy can blind us if we are not careful.

Posted 11 November 2012, 5:22 p.m. Suggest removal

(Scott Wedel) Scott_Wedel says...

How Romney's income was classified as capital gains is part of the problem because it was the result of selling what he had earlier purchased for a capital gain. It is a creative accounting technique of "carried interest" that transforms what was once considered income into capital gains.

There are also games in how people can build something, charge minimal labor and then sell to the claim capital gains. Such as someone flipping a house might take no wages for working on the house so then all added value is returned as capital gains.

Or how growing companies "give" their employees stock options and so can attract employees at lower salaries. And the options are typically converted into stock which
is then immediately sold since financial advisers note that the employee has a deeply imbalanced investment portfolio.

Things like that to find ways to change what could be income into capital gains is often economically inefficient even as it is an effective tax plan.

Which is why there are some serious proposals to index the base price of the asset to inflation and then treat capital gains the same as regular income.

Posted 11 November 2012, 7:11 p.m. Suggest removal

(John Weibel) jweibel says...


For the rockefellers and rothchilds, wealth exists with the stroke of a key today, or the printing of a bank note, which we are not privy to the details of which.

Though Bloombergs suit to release details on the Tarp funds showed how federal reserve bankers wives were leant hundreds of millions of dollars at low interest rates which then could be used to buy other assets and play the spread.

What I think you and I would consider wealth comes from somewhere other than how the rockefellers and rothchilds form it.

Posted 11 November 2012, 7:19 p.m. Suggest removal

(mark hartless) markhartless says...

If those techniques are wrong (and to some extent they certainly are) they should be changed.
However, if you change how much money someone pays in taxes for "flipping a house" that change will come with consequences of LESS economic activity. And who suffers the most from that? The poor, NOT the rich.
This FACT is part of the economic realityt I wish more people understood.

Sure you can change laws to make it harder to avoid taxes, and perhaps they need changing, but with every stroke of the pen some investor somewhere walks away and economic activity retreats accordingly.
There is no "free lunch", no "free healthcare", no free anything. Taking money from "the rich" will only work until they walk away.

Trillions of dollars are, and have been, in a holding pattern just off our shores. Instead of getting an opportunity to have a small percentage of that huge tidal wave of cash and the economic activity it would spur, Americans seem increasingly willing to settle for eating the crumbs that fall from the rich mans table. And instead of going out there and hustling it seems like they are content to empower folks who promise to "shake rich whitey's" table a bit harder.

I find this pitifully sad because even the pitifully poor results that technique yields only happens until the rich man moves away to be closer to his off-shore fortunes.

For goodness sakes, why not help people get rich themselves, so they don't care if the other rich guy walks away????

To the extent that printing money can benefit those in high places, this is wrong. Not to mention the fact that the resulting inflation is the most insidious way a government can ever rob it's people. And once again, it hurts the poor the most.
However, I'm not sure how having a democrat VS republican president would really change that.
To the extent that bankers' wives were loaned what I presume was taxpayer money, I think that is completely wrong and in-defensible.
I would be willing to bet that, considering the microscope Romney was under, he played by the rules which were established by others long before he showed up. That means he is not, and was not dishonest.
The supreme court has ruled, in fact, that taxpayers (including Romney) have a right to "...may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible..."

We ought to stop demonizing wealth and start trying to emulate it.
Greed, envy, plunder, re-distribution does not fuel prosperity, and wealth is the only known cure for poverty.

Posted 11 November 2012, 8:10 p.m. Suggest removal

(Mike Isaac) MikeIsaac says...

The Corporations that control the 2 major parties did a good job of making sure that no matter who won this puppet election the real winners would be the big Banks, Wall Street, Health Insurance companies, Defense Contractors, Oil and Gas, Solar and Wind and the Billionaires that hide their $$$ offshore like Apple GE, BP and others. The losers are the other 99.5% of the American People that work for a living, own a small or medium size Business, those that earn over that $250,000 but don't operate in China, India or Mexico and reinvest their profits in the USA, Coal, our Troops fighting a endless war for lie called 9-11 and our Liberties that were lost under GW Bush's Patriot Act then further attacked with Obama's National Defense Authoazation Act (NDAA). So now the War Mongering Obama can now kill and detain US Citizens without a trial. and that must have made Dick Cheney smile. But it was not all bad, Prop 64 did pass and Scott Tipton won, our Congressman that voted against the NDAA.
But of course more bad news in on the way Obama is going to pass a Carbon Tax and many Republicans will support it. So everything will go up in price because Al Gore says Global Warming is gonna make the Sea Level rise 20+ feet. However he just bought a $9,000,000 house on the California coast so you know he is full of $#!+. And thinks we are stupid enough to believe his lie. I bet that fat pigs power bill is the size of House Payment in the Sanctuary.

Posted 24 November 2012, 7:55 a.m. Suggest removal

Post a comment (Requires free registration)

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.