Utahns, how excited are you about Mitt Romney

Ddawg wrote:

Donald Trump has endorsed Mitt Romney, so now all you Trump supporters have to support Mitt or you're not making America great.

And all you Trump haters will have to eat your hyper-criticisms of Trump's commitment to being conservative. The Heritage Foundation says Trump is more conservative than, and achieved more in his 1st year, than Ronald Reagan.



I have always supported Mitt Romney because he was better than the alternative. But he is not a real conservative. He's a squishy Republican and a globalist - per his record in Massachusetts. Hopefully Mitt is not a John McCain clone. Keeping my fingers crossed.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heritage-donald-trump-has-achieved-more-than-ronald-reagan-in-first-year/article/2646849

Trump has governed more conservatively than I thought/feared he might. I hope that he continues doing so.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Trump has governed more conservatively than I thought/feared he might. I hope that he continues doing so.

Yes he has. He has governed lawfully and very conservatively, and well. Shocking to most, he has been keeping his campaign promises.

BoiseBYU wrote:

If you could not care less what I have to say, then why post? Odd. For the record, I am not a Trump hater. Calling out the falsehoods or inanities of the man does not make one a hater. It just means that person has issues regarding statements or actions of the man. And also for the record, I have complimented specific actions his Administration has undertaken. noted above, I applauded the Administration's efforts regarding ISIS. But the bottom line is that, in the words of Mitt Romney, "Trump's words are as worthless as a degree from Trump University."

All I can do is tell you how I really feel. I really don't care much about what you and the other Trump haters have to say about Trump. Trump has been an effective conservative president. He is rolling back Obama's red tape, he has revamped an overbearing tax code, he is enforcing immigration law, he is appointing conservative judges, he is rebuilding our military, he has re-energized out economy. Whether you like those things or not, they are happening.

Ddawg wrote:

If you could not care less what I have to say, then why post? Odd. For the record, I am not a Trump hater. Calling out the falsehoods or inanities of the man does not make one a hater. It just means that person has issues regarding statements or actions of the man. And also for the record, I have complimented specific actions his Administration has undertaken. noted above, I applauded the Administration's efforts regarding ISIS. But the bottom line is that, in the words of Mitt Romney, "Trump's words are as worthless as a degree from Trump University."

All I can do is tell you how I really feel. I really don't care much about what you and the other Trump haters have to say about Trump. Trump has been an effective conservative president. He is rolling back Obama's red tape, he has revamped an overbearing tax code, he is enforcing immigration law, he is appointing conservative judges, he is rebuilding our military, he has re-energized out economy. Whether you like those things or not, they are happening.

No one will fault you for saying what you really feel. :) Typically, when I do not care what someone thinks, I do not respond. It is not worth my time at least. There are things this Congress has done, with Trump's approval, that I support. There are some things Trump has done, with Congress's approval, that I like too. There are lots of things I very much oppose, some that make me ashamed, but America voted the man in and deserves what it votes. That aside, and so you know what I think of Trump, we are led by a narcistic, immoral patholigical liar, as ill-equipped as any person has every been to be President. I do not believe it took a Trump for the Congress to act as it has acted with regard to ISIS, tax reform and tax cuts or the appointment of conservative judges for example. A President Pence, or Cruz or just about any Republican out there would have done the same thing, no doubt more effectively. Trump lovers like you need to take stock of the man you fawn over and consider the impact he as Trump, not as a Republican President, is having on our country. Whether YOU like it or not, it is happening and as I see to the detriment of the country.

BoiseBYU wrote:

I do not believe it took a Trump for the Congress to act as it has acted with regard to ISIS, tax reform and tax cuts or the appointment of conservative judges for example. A President Pence, or Cruz or just about any Republican out there would have done the same thing, no doubt more effectively. Trump lovers like you need to take stock of the man you fawn over and consider the impact he as Trump, not as a Republican President, is having on our country. Whether YOU like it or not, it is happening and as I see to the detriment of the country.

I cannot stand President Trump. he is in my opinion the worst president in our history and it ain't even close. That said, I do not believe that any other Republican running for president against Hillary could have beaten her. No one else could have gotten (what I will inartfuly call "fringe" Republican voters) the same voters out enough to earn a victory. At least that is my opinion. So when you say that President Cruz or Pence would have done the same things as President Trump, I'm not so sure that President Cruz or Pence would be president Cruz or Pence, so Trump is the only guy who could have done it.

The question is whether Trump is doing more good, or more harm. It's like getting a large loan now, but having to pay it back many times over later down the road. Many people can't seem to imagine that future costs matter, not when the current "spending" is so exciting. The Republican party mortgaged their house to buy Trump, and only time will tell if they lose that as a consequence.

ABYUFAN wrote:

I do not believe it took a Trump for the Congress to act as it has acted with regard to ISIS, tax reform and tax cuts or the appointment of conservative judges for example. A President Pence, or Cruz or just about any Republican out there would have done the same thing, no doubt more effectively. Trump lovers like you need to take stock of the man you fawn over and consider the impact he as Trump, not as a Republican President, is having on our country. Whether YOU like it or not, it is happening and as I see to the detriment of the country.

I cannot stand President Trump. he is in my opinion the worst president in our history and it ain't even close. That said, I do not believe that any other Republican running for president against Hillary could have beaten her. No one else could have gotten (what I will inartfuly call "fringe" Republican voters) the same voters out enough to earn a victory. At least that is my opinion. So when you say that President Cruz or Pence would have done the same things as President Trump, I'm not so sure that President Cruz or Pence would be president Cruz or Pence, so Trump is the only guy who could have done it.

You very well might be right. I am not aware of definitive data one way or the other. Trump generated some measure of anti Trump voters that otherwise might have voted a Republican. That mostly matters in FL WI and PA and I don’t know which way that broke. You very well may be right.

President Trump has talked of making America great again. He has worked to cut taxes and regulations to help businesses. Now we hear Apple is going to spend Billions ($300+) on infrastructure. They have said they will hire 20,000 people. Chrysler is bringing back a plant to Michigan but I don't know how much they are going to poor into the economy. He and others worked to reduce taxes on businesses resulted in many companies giving bonuses to thousands of workers when dissenters were trying to tell us it was only going to benefit the rich.



He got us out of the Paris Climate Accord saving tax payers at least a billion for what some say would have been a 1degree reduction in this century. Under his and Nikki Haley's direction at least $285 million have been cut from the U N. There may be more taken form this organization that we pay more than our fair share to.



He said he'd cut staff and he has done so.



He, at this point, looks to be keeping his promises, at least a lot of them. I don't know everything but I don't see him as much of a pathological or any other type of liar.

Which one has donated more money to Democratic campaigns? Honest question.

hawkwing wrote:

Which one has donated more money to Democratic campaigns? Honest question.

Probably Ronald Reagan. He was a Dem for 20+ years and Chairman of the California Democratic Party. He eventually became a Republican in 1962. The rest is history.

So my ten year old daughter really likes ranked lists and often asks me to rank the last ten or twenty presidents. Tonight she asked me to rank the last five and I was very surprised that in pretty much every category Trump ranked number one. Crazy I know but think about it.



I guess he still has time to start a full scale war in Syria and move himself lower in terms of foreign policy. And if he passes his gas tax and ridiculous infrastructure spending he can drop for sure but right now he's at the top of the list.

jvquarterback wrote:

So my ten year old daughter really likes ranked lists and often asks me to rank the last ten or twenty presidents. Tonight she asked me to rank the last five and I was very surprised that in pretty much every category Trump ranked number one. Crazy I know but think about it.



I guess he still has time to start a full scale war in Syria and move himself lower in terms of foreign policy. And if he passes his gas tax and ridiculous infrastructure spending he can drop for sure but right now he's at the top of the list.

What criteria do you use to rank the presidents? I'm honestly curios.

Foreign policy.

Tax rates.

Government spending.

Adherence to constitutional constraints.

Let me guess, lower taxes are better?



I would rather pay higher taxes so as to pay off our national debt, get our country out of bondage to foreign powers.

It's going to be a close senate race. Latest poll 2/20/18.

Romney 60, Wilson 14. Romney +46



Hold your breath.

8)

Mars wrote:

Let me guess, lower taxes are better?



I would rather pay higher taxes so as to pay off our national debt, get our country out of bondage to foreign powers.

This is just dumb. Why pay higher taxes? To pay off national debt? Ha Ha. Screw that, it'll never happen. Increased tax (theft) only gives the left AND right more power for their particular entitlements. When the govt gets serious about cutting spending I'll consider that they are serious about the debt problem. Until then I'll continue to be the greediest capitalist pig (in regards to tax) you'll ever meet. I earned that money and I'll keep an much as I can and donate the rest to where I see fit. Thank you.



Besides that, everytime the govt has cut taxes, they bring in MORE money. Including this most recent cut, so far.

BroncoBot wrote:

Let me guess, lower taxes are better?



I would rather pay higher taxes so as to pay off our national debt, get our country out of bondage to foreign powers.

This is just dumb. Why pay higher taxes? To pay off national debt? Ha Ha. Screw that, it'll never happen. Increased tax (theft) only gives the left AND right more power for their particular entitlements. When the govt gets serious about cutting spending I'll consider that they are serious about the debt problem. Until then I'll continue to be the greediest capitalist pig (in regards to tax) you'll ever meet. I earned that money and I'll keep an much as I can and donate the rest to where I see fit. Thank you.



Besides that, everytime the govt has cut taxes, they bring in MORE money. Including this most recent cut, so far.

Why should we be spending more than we are taking in? Why put the burden of that debt on our children and their children to pay? That used to be a ruling principle of the Republican Party and Conservatives but obviously no more. And I am not aware of any evidence that lowering taxes brings more tax revenue in than the tax cut caused. The latest place that tried that is Kansas and see how that worked out. I know about the money some companies are repatriating back to the US as a result of the tax cuts BUT that is a one off and does not count.

BoiseBYU wrote:

... I am not aware of any evidence that lowering taxes brings more tax revenue in than the tax cut caused.

You need to study more.



Forbes article -

"In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall."



http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2012/10/Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">





"The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article. In conclusion, as JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush understood, reducing taxes has a stimulative effect on economic activity which leads to an increase in government reciepts. You can't argue with history!"



https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/#70e690144bf2

The graph is confusing. It appears to have federal receipts almost constantly going up over time, including the only period where taxes increased (1986-1994). The only two periods where the federal receipts are shown going down, taxes are not increasing. So the -.5 correlation is interesting, but doesn't appear to show well visually.



It makes sense though that decreasing government spending and increasing debt payments will pay down the debt faster than simply increasing taxes.

.... Romney goes on to say this:



"In many cases, lowering taxes can actually increase government revenues. If new businesses, new investments and new hiring are spurred by the prospects of better after-tax returns, the taxes paid by these new or growing businesses and employees can more than make up for the lower rates of taxation."



It's a balancing act. The lower taxes must spur economic growth (as is expected). It taxes are cut, and a recession occurs, revenue will not increase. Cut taxes, economic growth is spurred (as is happening now), revenue increases because of economic growth.