No one has a crystal ball to see how the
future will come out, but Romney and others often complain the businesses are
afraid to invest and spend because they are uncertain about the future economy.
This is strange as Romney has said absolutely nothing, no specifics of how he
would change that.
He says he would repeal Obamacare, the
Affordable Health Care Act, but does not say what he would replace it with; we’re
supposed to just trust him. Oh he would give coverage to people with
pre-existing conditions – how, health insurance won’t do it unless they get
paid, so where does that money come from?
He would get rid of the Dodd-Frank Act;
then what? Deregulation is what cause the 2008 Wall Street collapse and we with
it. He gives no indication of how he would deal bank requirements or how to do
orderly bankruptcy.
He wants a $5 trillion tax cut (going
primarily to the rich) and reduce debt. How does that work. Oh, he going to
work with congress, trust them? They have blocked every proposal to reduce the
budget deficit.
He says he will end loopholes and
deductions for the wealthy, again no specifics. He said he would cap deductions
at $17,000 then in a few days he said $25,000.
So he attacks Obama for creating an
atmosphere of uncertainty and gives us more uncertainty.
Talk about uncertainty, Romney/Ryan scare
me to death on economics. The only thing I fairly certain of is that as a
retired, fixed income family, things will be worse for us as the ultra wealthy
make out like bandits.
I do know that Romney thinks it’s fair for
him to pay only 14% on his capital gains income “because it stimulates growth.”
Horse pucky, it we middle class folk who will spend if we have it and grow the
economy. But he has the audacity to say he will grow the middle class ~ how?
There must be an 'alternate reality' or conceptual disconnect; for we note that the folks that are over-worried about voter fraud
ReplyDeleteare worried about international observers . Here in GOP Idaho, the GOP attorney general has sued a conservative PAC to
release donor names under the GOP 'sunshine law'. Since there are no democrats in the state to speak of, they pick on each other instead...
Some pretty good points. Romney should give specifics. But remember it was over-regulation that caused the collapse in 2008. It would not have happened had government agencies not backed up and encouraged bad loans.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few things we can be reasonably certain of in any Republican presidency:
ReplyDelete1) Bigger deficit. Every republican administration increases the deficit. Every. Single. Time.
2) One or two new wars (see #1).
Interesting... but misleading. Both claims are also true of the Democrats, and no less so.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Rev, and others.... has your opinion on the Electoral College changed at all, now it is looking like Romney is ahead? I recall Rev. D presenting an argument by Albert W. Gore Jr. in favor of getting rid of it... which I also favored.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it is much more than ever. I think the over-focusing on Ohio that has happened since Rev. D's Gore blog post is ridiculous, and this is a situation that I think would be much better if we got rid of the Electoral College.
No, my opinion has not changed; why would it? If you want to find the case for the electoral college I suggest you check our George Will who is as articulate as you can find on the matter.
DeleteLooking at it now. One of Will's main points is that the EC "...Ensures National Campaigns "
DeleteLater on to support this, he says: "...choosing presidents by electoral votes is an incentive for candidates to wage truly national campaigns, building majorities that are geographically as well as ideologically broad"
I am not going to look into whether or not this was true when Will wrote it, but does it look true now? I don't think that there is anything geographically broad about the campaigns. The large "Red" regions are ignored, as are the large "Blue" ones, as one campaign takes the region for granted, and the other thinks they have no chance and don't waste time there.
Will gets specific
"Consider: Were it not for electoral votes allocated winner-take-all, would candidates campaign in, say, West Virginia?"
Guess what? WV now is deep red, so because of the EC system, the candidates are ignoring it. Other undeniably weak states, such as Vermont and Delaware (blue) and Montana (red) are ignored due to system.
Will continued: "However, for a 5-0 electoral vote sweep, West Virginia is worth a trip or two."
Not with the EC system. Under it, Romney does not have to fight to keep the state, and it is a complete waste of time for Obama to campaign or fight for its interest, because an increase in Obama votes here makes absolutely no difference in the election.
I don't see anything in Will's piece addressing this problem, nor do I see him addressing the problem of the "battleground" focus that gives Ohio the kingmaker role.... something I think you and I might agree is not desirable, and detracts from the democratic process.
I read somewhere that Obama has also chimed in on getting rid of it. Maybe he is tired of all the time in Ohio too.
ReplyDelete