Email letters, Oct. 5, 2012

Do we want an old-fashioned country or a fantasyland?

Make no mistake. Election Day 2012 is about the future of our country.

Our choice is between a responsible, old-fashioned America that has served us well for decades and Obama’s Euro-like fantasyland where everything is free except you.

BOB STRONG
Montrose

Scrap license plate surveillance, bring back in-car video cams

Your article, WATCH-N-U, published Sunday, Sept. 30, finally gives some credence to why there wasn’t money to finance video cams in Grand Junction police cars. It’s odd, Grand Junction paying for equipment now used by Mesa County sheriffs, Colorado State Patrol officers, Fruita police and more. The city council must believe it’s more productive and cost-effective to recover a handful of stolen vehicles than provide unquestionable evidence and/or protection for its law officers and all others involved.

A private vendor from Livermore, Calif., sold Grand Junction the license plate reader and now maintains and sells database storage that’s collected nearly a quarter million license numbers. That was a wise business move for them. Will personal information be released? We know by example that happens.

Is it wise to redirect tax money once used to protect lives and rights to recovering stolen cars, identifying cars owned by drivers with restrained licenses or with terminated insurance? They were identified as having vehicles or plates registered to them, not as driving illegally. Of course, Sgt. Stan Ancell maintains job security using the “if we can solve one” argument as an effort to justify using clandestine surveillance while gathering more than 225,000 plate numbers when only 110,000 people are in the Grand Valley, and using time and a half overtime pay for it.

How many law-abiding citizens have visited stores with parking lots to do their daily business and had no idea they were being entered into police records while innocent? Not even being addressed face to face of any suspected wrongdoing. It’s akin to New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy, a police state.

In-car videos benefit as evidence and can’t be disputed. They should be brought back for protection of all involved, citizens and law enforcement alike.

RALPH HICKS
Clifton

Real danger to America is flock of fools who prevailed in last election

The danger to America is not Barack Obama; the danger is a citizenry capable of entrusting a man such as he, one with absolutely no apparent experience of anything, whatsoever, with the presidency. 

It will be far easier to limit and undo all of his horrible mistakes and his hundreds of executive orders than it will be to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment of a depraved electorate willing to elect such a man for its president. 

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.  Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast flock of fools that made him their prince. 

Yes, the republic can survive a Barack Obama.  It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools who made him their president.


LLOYAL ANDERSON
Delta

Time will eventually be up to pay up Chinese bankers

The article in the Tuesday Sentinel, “Taxes will jump if U.S. shoved off ‘fiscal cliff,’” is revealing and a premonition of things to come. 

These taxes are the indebtedness that the government and we as its beneficiaries owe for services rendered.  While the debt principal and interest continues to grow, we are objecting to payment. 

The bill we are running up mostly with the Chinese bankers will have to be paid sometime by either us or our kids. When that time comes, and the note is called, it is not going to be pretty.


ROBERT A. TALLARICO
Grand Junction

Obama’s debate comments on jobs seem detached from reality

I listened to President Obama in his own words on his jobs performance and plan. The president says his administration has created 5 million jobs in the past 3-½ years and that his plan will create another 1 million jobs.

So, the president’s goal and his plan for the country are to grow fewer jobs in a second administration than in the past one. Is his ambition for the future that meager?

Does he realize that more than 8 percent unemployment is not a good thing? Or is he just so disconnected from his own words as not to realize that this is not growth?

After watching his performance Tuesday, I’m not at all sure he comprehends the words on his teleprompter.

KENNETH BROWNLEE
Grand Junction

 



COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1


The caption of Bob Strong’s on-line letter – “Do we want an old-fashioned country or a fantasy land”—is tautological, because the “old-fashioned country” to which he refers is also the “fantasyland” of which he dreams

Strong is absolutely right:  “Make no mistake.  Election Day 2012 is about the future of our country”, but the false choice he offers is just as absolutely wrong.

Our real choice is between a responsible, Eisenhower-esque President Obama – a loyal American who has served us well for four years, and Romney-Ryan’s wholly discredited Reagan/Bush “trickle down” economic fantasyland—in which everything is free for the top 3%, the bottom 47% is disregarded, and the Middle Class of 50% “pays the freight”.

Mitt Romney is a dishonest, unprincipled, unpatriotic, over-privileged, arrogant, draft-dodging “Euro-like” plutocrat who avoided service in Viet Nam by “missioneering” for Mormonism in the south of France, while writing “love letters in the sand”.

At Bain Capital, Romney was “responsible” for “cherry-picking” struggling American businesses and converting their cash reserves and/or federally insured pension plans into profits for himself by destroying hundreds of American jobs and outsourcing hundreds more to China, while instructing his clients how to avoid American taxes.

Romney was a failed governor in Massachusetts who could not have won reelection – because he ranked 47th in the nation in job creation (prompting thousands to flee the state seeking jobs elsewhere), and he left both the budget and infrastructure in shambles.

Romney’s campaign has been a “shell game” in which he “hides the ball” by refusing to disclose the details of his “plans” – much less his dubious tax returns (ignoring the “old-fashioned” values of his father).  Ryan’s speech at the RNC was the most dishonest in the history of political conventions, and Romney told at least one lie every 90 seconds during the first presidential debate.

Thus, by any objective standard, Romney simply cannot be trusted with “the future of our country”.

                Bill Hugenberg

Contrary to Lloyal Anderson’s on-line letter – “Real danger to America is flock of fools who prevailed in last election” (October 5, 2012) – the “real danger to America is” the “flock of fools” who continue to de-legitimize the last election and diminish President Obama’s remarkable accomplishments.

A quick look at the unemployment and job creation graphs on Saturday’s Sentinel front page will confirm both the severity of the economic crisis President Obama inherited from irresponsible Republicans and what he accomplished despite their persistent and unpatriotic obstructionism.

Thus, as Anderson rightly opines, “the real danger to America is not Barack Obama”.

Rather, the real “danger is a citizenry capable of entrusting a man such as” Mitt Romney (a draft-dodging, tax-avoiding “vulture capitalist” and failed governor of Massachusetts) – and thus “one with absolutely no apparent experience of anything, whatsoever, with the presidency” – with our economic future.

Moreover, “it will be far easier to” continue limiting and undoing all of Reagan’s and the Bush’s “horrible mistakes” by retaining President Obama in the oval office (despite his 139 executive orders) than returning to the thoroughly discredited “Voodoo Economics” and “trickle down” fantasies espoused by Romney-Ryan.

Rejecting the profligate deficit spending and irresponsible Iraq War of the Bush years, voters in 2008 “restored the necessary common sense and good judgment” embodied by President Obama, and in 2012 should similarly reject the “depraved indifference” of Romney-Ryan and their fellow Republicans to the restoration of our Middle Class.

Thus, “the problem is much deeper and far more serious that Obama”, who is a shining symbol of the American Dream.  Blaming President Obama for the consequences of Republican policies “should not blind anyone to the vast flock of fools” who elected Reagan and the Bush’s by falling for their false promises of “fiscal conservatism”.

Yes, the republic will flourish under four-more-years of Barack Obama.  “It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools” – apparently including Anderson – who would replace him as President.

                Bill Hugenberg

Romney appeared in the debate as I would expect a candidate for President to do. He is clean,
articulate (as Joe Biden said about Obama),strong, respectful, knowledgeable, intelligent,a natural leader, and someone with morals and principals. In short, all the things Obama is not.

Mr. Strong and Mr.Anderson are both exactly right.

Dennis:

Romney is also a dishonest and unpatriotic white man who believes in “goofy stuff” like invisible Golden Plates and “trickle down economics” —something that President Obama is not.

Robert A. Tallarico’s on-line letter – “Time will eventually be up to pay up Chinese bankers” (October 5, 2012) – aptly suggests that our growing national debt is both a fiscal/financial and national security concern, but not necessarily “a premonition of things to come”.

Unless Congress acts responsibly before December 31, 2012 (or shortly thereafter), the Bush tax cuts will expire and most Americans will almost immediately begin paying more in federal income taxes on income earned during 2013.

President Obama would extend Bush’s tax cuts (originally financed with borrowing from China) for joint income up to $250,000.  Romney wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for all income—thereby incurring an additional $1 trillion in borrowing from China, and also proposes another $5 trillion tax cut (a 20% reduction in all marginal tax brackets) – if (but only if?) Congress entirely pays for it by closing as-yet-unspecified “loopholes” and/or by limiting/eliminating as-yet-unspecified deductions for the top 3%.

Moreover, Romney also wants to increase defense spending by $2 trillion over ten years, while most independent objective analysts conclude that we could cut actually defense spending by $1 trillion without compromising our national security.  In sum, Romney’s proposals could add to “the indebtedness that the government and we as its beneficiaries owe for services rendered” by $8+ trillion.

“While the debt principal”—$16 trillion – and annual interest—almost$400 billion – “continue to grow”, Tea Party Republicans exacerbated the problem by threatening to declare “bankruptcy” and by obstructing and/or rejecting every bipartisan effort to responsibly address the debt (e.g., the Simpson-Bowles Commission).

Nevertheless, these problems are not insurmountable – if we do not return to the failed Republican policies that dug this hole in the first place.

Readers interested in better understanding these complex issues should try the “Federal Budget Challenge” exercise at http://federal.budgetchallenge.org/respondents/summary#.

                Bill Hugenberg

Mr. Hugenberg has repeated this talking points mantra before about dishonesty and being unpatriotic. Who is he to judge who or what is unpatriotic? I could make the same claims about him just because I disagree with his views. Since his views are not the same as mine and I feel I am very patriotic and honest he must therefore be the opposite.

Using that as the basis for his judgment , I would have to then find Obama to be a not only unpatriotic, but possibly a traitor. How much sense does that make?

Is that the way we now judge others? Sorry, personally I kind of believe in “judge not” what is in another man’s heart. Does that make me a dangerous right winger clinging to “my guns and my bible”? You be the judge of that.

For Dennis Patton’s benefit,  Mitt Romney is “unpatriotic” for the following reasons:

1.  Romney demonstrated in favor of the Viet Nam War and draft, but entitrely avoided military service by “missioneering” for Mormonism in the south of France.

2.  None of his sons have served in the military.

3.  As a vulture capitalist at Bain Capital, Romney destroyed American jobs and outsourced many to China – and invested in Chinese sweatshops – even as he now criticizes President Obama for not being “tough on China” (even though he knows that President Obama has filed more trade actions against China than any previous President).

4.  Romney lied about his residency in Massachusetts, about his state tax filings, and about the duration of his tenure at Bain Capital – in order to avoid accountability for the activities of Bain Capital while he was president, chairman of the board, and sole owner.

5.  Romney “hid” (per Paul Ryan) his assets and profits in the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, Bermuda, and in Swiss bank accounts, while claiming that he received no tax avoidance benefits therefrom.  If true, there was no cogent reason to move them offshore.

6.  Contrary to both his father’s and President Obama’s example (who both released twelve years of federal income tax returns), Romney has released no tax returns for any period prior to his decision to run for President (as his father deemed appropriate).  Thus, Mitt is denying American voters the most objective and traditionally accepted evidence of his trustworthiness.  Either he is hiding something (“ammunition” for critics, per Ann) or (s)he is simply too arrogant to be President (and she to be First Lady).

7.  Romney made no mention of the War in Afghanistan or offered any thanks to the troops fighting overseas in his acceptance speech at the RNC.
 
8.  Romney pays lip service to the military as a budget item, promising to increase defense spending by $2 trillion over ten years, even though the Department of Defense has not requested such an increase and even while nonpartisan analysts conclude that we could cut defense spending by at least $1 trillion over ten years without compromising our national security.

9.  Romney dismisses the 47% of households who pay no federal income taxes – which includes active duty military in war zones and both disabled and retired veterans.  Romney was “wrong” on that, “wrong” on Bin Laden, “wrong” on the auto bailout, and “wrong” on Pakistan – while Obama was right (for which Dennis calls him a “traitor”)!

10.  The whole purpose of an election is to “judge what is another man’s heart”, not unthinking (“judge not”) acceptance of campaign malarkey and fact-checked falsehoods.

Mr. Hugenberg, let me start by saying that I did NOT call Obama a traitor. Nice try at trying to take something out of context yourself and making it sound like truth in order to discredit me. As you well know (since you are such an intelligent man) what I said was that using YOUR logic one might make that assessment of Obama.

Nothing you have said here makes anyone unpatriotic. All of your charges are in ”your opinion” the truth “as you see it”. Others see the same thing and come to different conclusions, that does not make them wrong any more than it makes you wrong. You see Mr. Hugenberg we do have a First Amendment which gives us freedom of speech to state our opinions. And you know Mr. Hugenberg, opinions are like A**H***s, everyone has one and no one’s is any better than anyone else’s.

Kenneth Brownlee’s on-line letter – “Obama’s debate comments seem detached from reality (October 5, 2012) – reveals that it is really he who is “detached from reality”.

While the President was less than fully clear about his job creation plans, the record shows that – as a result of the economic recovery initiated by his “stimulus” proposals – the economy has created 5+ million jobs in the past 3 ½ years.

Michael Grunwald’s book, “The New New Deal,” demonstrates that President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act saved and/or created at least 2.5 million jobs, helped the economy grow by as much as 3.8 percent, and kept the unemployment rate from reaching 12 percent – all despite Republican obstructionism.  In addition, another 1+ million jobs were saved by his “auto bailout” (which Romney publicly opposed).

President Obama’s plan to “create another 1 million jobs” is the American Jobs Act of 2011, which would have funded the rehiring of some 300,000 teachers, firemen, and police and created 1+ million new infrastructure construction jobs, but which the Tea Party House never even voted on – lest some Republicans support it and thereby give the economy a boost that would have enhanced President Obama’s chances of reelection.

According to Moody’s Analytics in August, the ongoing economic recovery sparked by President Obama’s stimulus efforts will generate nearly 12 million new jobs over the next four years, regardless of who is President.  Thus, it is completely ridiculous and willfully ignorant to suggest that “the president’s goal and his plan for the country are to grow fewer jobs in a second administration than in the past one”.

Rather, because Romney promises only to generate that same “12 million jobs” (without saying how), Brownlee should be asking “Is his ambition for the future that meager?”

Of course, President Obama realizes that 8+ % unemployment “is not a good thing”, but Republicans now hysterically insist that neither is 7.8%.  (See Daily Sentinel, October 6, 2012, “Theorists claim jobless rate drop is number crunch”).  Had the American Jobs Act of 2011 been enacted, that rate would now be below 7%—certainly “a good thing”.

After reading Brownlee’s letter, I’m not sure he comprehends the words on his paper.

                Bill Hugenberg

The difference between Dennis Patton’s exercise of “free speech” and mine is that he insidiously abused it by injecting racist insinuations into the discussion – and then argued that (applying his own rendition of my logic) he could describe President Obama as “unpatriotic” and “traitor” without offering any factual basis for his opinion.
That Romney is running strongest among “non-college-educated white males” speaks volumes about his well-funded, lie-based “appeal”.  Meanwhile, Tea Party Republicans spout “sanctimonious nonsense”, while disdaining history, economics, facts, and common sense – and have continuously castigated President Obama as if he were the “anti-Christ” since even before he took office.
A patriot would stand up and say: “enough, already”, but Mitt won’t, because he isn’t.
After Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 Presidential election in LBJ’s landslide, he asked Michigan Governor George Romney (his primary Republican opponent and Mitt’s father) why Romney hadn’t endorsed and/or supported him.
While George Romney hadn’t really “marched with Martin Luther King” in 1963 (another Mitt lie), he rejected the John Birch Society (the Tea Partiers of the time) and sought to amend the Republican Party platform to endorse the Civil Rights Act and disavow extremism—which Goldwater and his supporters opposed and/or defeated.
Responding to Goldwater’s inquiry, Romney wrote:
“Dogmatic ideological parties tend to splinter the political and social fabric of a nation, lead to governmental crises and deadlocks, and stymie the compromises so often necessary to preserve freedom and achieve progress.”
While Mitt disingenuously accuses President Obama of “dividing the Nation”, his father prophetically predicted the consequences of Mitt’s own unprincipled alliance with extremists (like Patton?) – and continuing baseless slanders against President Obama.

George Romney and President Obama both released twelve years of income tax returns, but Mitt refuses to follow his own father’s example of trustworthiness – because he isn’t.
Without diminishing the many positive contributions of religion to the advancement of human civilization and U.S. political culture (racism, sexism, blood-letting, homophobia, and the Ninth Commandment aside)—just as Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, Catholics also believe in biological implausibilities, and Evangelicals insist that the Old Testament trumps Christ’s teachings—Mormons believe they are descended from Lost Tribes of Israel (contrary to DNA evidence), that Joseph Smith saw God and/or Jesus in 1820 and discovered Golden Plates in 1823 (which – like Mitt’s tax returns – remain hidden), miraculously translated them, and thus became another post-Biblical Prophet!

Mitt professes to believe in all that “goofy stuff”, and “trickle down” economics as well.

Mr. Hugenberg, you have accused me of using “free speech” to insidiously inject race into the discussion. That sir must be your own prejudice, as I did not and would never use anyone’s race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or country of origin to argue a point.  Unlike you, I believe a person’s religion is their own business unless they try to force it on anyone else. Mr. Romney has never made an issue of his religion, only you have done that with your prejudice.

I am old enough to remember all of the “sky is falling” , fear mongering that went on when JFK (Oh horrors-A Catholic) was running for president. Were you also worried about his religion? How about a Muslim, would that bother you also? Or maybe even a native American Shaman?A Scientologist? Adventist? Jehova Witness?

For all of your pontificating all over the Sentinel pages spouting your liberal talking points you come across as an elitist snob.  Your calling me an “ unprincipled extremist” when you know nothing about me makes you sound   ridiculous and moronic Mr. Hugenberg

Page 1 of 1






Search More Jobs






THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy