Back in May, Mitt Romney went to a Florida fundraiser and basically called the 47% of Obama supporters victims. His mistake was confusing the 46% of Americans who do not pay Federal Income Tax with the 47% of Americans who are supporting President Obama.
And, he said it to a room full of rich people who believe the same thing.
A lot of news casts have been focusing on the people who make up the 46%, but I don’t think that is the only lesson we should take from this. I think we should also realize that how Romney described Obama supporters is how Romney and other conservatives actually see us. If I had a dollar for every time a Republican has called me lazy when all they know about me is that I write a blog, I’d be almost as rich as Romney. I’ve been told to get a job, too. People like Romney have been kept so far from normal people that they can’t understand how a working person might consider paying taxes as the price we pay for living in the greatest country on earth.
Rich people like Romney are really the ones who feel entitled. In trying to dig himself out of this hold, Romney has been saying that people need good paying jobs and he strongly suggests that President Obama would rather give handouts. But, the irony on Romney’s statement is lost on him and most Republicans : People like Romney are the reason there aren’t more good paying jobs in America. In the search for cheap labor, the so-called job creators have laid off Americans and moved their factories overseas. Then, they rake in the big bucks and demand to pay less taxes.
Finally, has anyone noticed that the majority of those people who support Romney live in red states? And, the red states receive more federal aid than the blue states. And, then they speak about personal responsibility.
While Governor, Mitt Romney signed into law a healthcare law that is very much like the Affordable Care Act. I will admit that I am not very familiar with Massachusett’s law, but I believe that if Romney had disagreed with the law, he could have vetoed it.
Romney is running for President and he plans on overturning ACA (aka Obamacare) on day one, my friend.
Now, this passed weekend, Romney goes on talk shows and said that there are some parts of ACA he likes and he will keep them.
How can anyone take this guy seriously any more? I don’t have a problem with a politician saying “You know, I was against this, but I did more research and I’ve changed my mind.” I don’t mind a politician saying, “I was against this, but I’ve received a thousand letters from my constituents and I’m going to vote for it, because they want me too.” (Where would we find a guy like that?)
But, Romney is running on a platform that is against Obamacare! And, now he’s mellowing? Where is the decisive business man he claims to be? He flips and flops that it scares me. He wants to be liked. Mitt Romney wants all of us to like him.
But, that’s not possible when you’re running for office. You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything. We need a President with a backbone! Not someone who wants all of us to be his friend. I have friends. The country has friends. What we need is a strong leader and Mitt isn’t.
Finally, the Roberts led Court made a decision that will actually be good for this country. Too bad the right wing is too stubborn to agree.
Sadly, many on the right just don’t get it.
They think that this equates to people getting something for nothing. Apparently, they haven’t been told that millions of hardworking American citizens either can’t afford insurance or work where it isn’t offered. The Affordable Care Act means that they will have access to affordable health insurance. That’s a good thing.
Plus, the law finally does what should’ve been done a very long time ago – it regulates the insurance companies. Now, they have to spend 85% of the premiums on actual health care. This is a good thing. Let me explain.
I’m a responsible, tax paying American citizen. When I was working as a contractor, I purchased the most expensive health care plan my employer offered. I paid the full amount of the premium. I thought I had purchased a plan that would cover up to $15,000 of charges. I ended up in the hospital and the bill came to well over $6,000. My insurance company didn’t pay anything. What they did do was deny the hospital payment for services and lower the cost of others. I was left with a $4,000 bill.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t have $4,000 just lying around.
With the health care law in full effect, this wouldn’t have happened. And, I wouldn’t be making monthly payments to my local hospital. The insurance company would’ve done what I had been paying them to do.
Another good thing about the health care law is the removal of pre-existing conditions. I have a very mild case of asthma. There was a mix up with my insurance when I switched from one consulting firm to another. This left me without insurance coverage for about two weeks (during which I managed to rack up another $2,000 in Hospital bills.)
Under the old ways, no continuing coverage – no coverage for my asthma. Not now.
Now, my new insurance cannot penalize me for someone else’s mistake.
Which brings me to the Individual Mandate. #1. You don’t want someone to not have coverage, be diagnosed with cancer and then sign up for insurance. That would be the same as not buying car insurance until after you’ve been in an accident. By making everyone have insurance, this scenario practically goes away.
#2. By everyone having insurance, hospitals will be paid for services. If you think people are walking away from medical bills and no one is paying for it, you’re wrong. We all pay when the hospitals raise their rates to make up for the deadbeats.
Responsible adults carry insurance. Now, we’re all going to be responsible adults whether the right wing agrees or not.
Posted from WordPress for Android
Quick, which Presidential candidate had a rich daddy pay for his Harvard education?
Which candidate broke companies apart, created layoffs for his fellow Americans and became rich in the process ?
Romney’s campaign slogan “Putting Jobs First” is a joke of epic proportions. Romney isn’t someone who knows about putting jobs first. He is a business man and a very successful one. For that he deserves credit. However; you CAN’T run the government like you run a business.
Business people care about profits and that runs contrary to creating jobs. Businesses don’t create jobs for the sake of creating them. They create jobs when there is a need.
What creates need? Demand. Demand for your products or services creates the environment that causes companies to higher.
Profits DO NOT create jobs. Take a good hard look at the profit and lost sheets of nearly every major company in the country. You will find that most of them – the majority of them – are making higher profits now then before the 2008 crash.
Then, take a look at their hiring. See any job creation? Not a lot.
Think tax cuts are the answer? Think again. Taxes on the upper one percent and corporations are lower now than they were in the 1950s. And, still, very few jobs.
Is our economy improving?
Yes it is, but if we make cuts in government spending now – like Romney supports – and we further cut the taxes on the rich – like Romney wants – we’re repeating 1937. And, we all know what happened in 1937.
Romney is the wrong man at the wrong time. We don’t need a business man who only knows profits. We don’t need a man who spent his professional career laying people off. We don’t need a man who asks his country what can you do for me and then hides his money in the Cayman Islands. We don’t need a man who believes that “Corporations are people, my friend.”
We need a man who has had student loan debt. A man who knows our communities. A man who understands that the road to success is paved with hard work and dedication.
We need President Obama for another four years.
Posted from WordPress for Android
The Show of Hands question was: Have you ever given cash to a person on the street with a cardboard sign?
Here’s what didn’t surprise me; more Democrats and Independents said yes than Republicans. Most Republicans do their charitable giving inside church walls or at church run/sponsored events.
Here’s something that did surprise me: More men answered yes than women. 52% if the men vs 50% of the women.
And, here’s something else surprising; the higher the respondent’s income, the more likely they answered yes. Only half of the under $50,000 earners said yes, while 54% of the over $100,000 earners said yes.
Posted from WordPress for Android