I am going to start of with some points of agreement we may all have across the political divide. These points of agreement strongly suggest that we should re-elect President Obama. First, I agree with Representative Paul Ryan that "The greatest of all responsibilities is that of the strong to protect the weak." Ryan also said that "The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves." Does anyone doubt that Obama's policies will protect the weak better than Romney's?
Second, Governor Romney in a fundraiser in San Diego recently said that the current administration has put American on "a pathway to become like Europe ... It’s even possible we could be on a pathway to become California." Europe and California are doing quite well, so that's a good path to be on. Romney would perhaps put us on a path to be like one or more of the many third world countries with laissez-faire capitalism and right-wing dictatorships that conservatives admire so greatly, but all of which are mired in high poverty and low life expectancy.
Romney is so hungry for office that he has abandoned whatever values he has and is running against his own legacy—health care reform—as well as his reputation as a moderate. He cannot possibly "win" this fight. Indeed he really wins if he does not become President on a platform making him beholden to people determined to destroy what he has achieved. I doubt he wants that and neither do I.
I take Ryan at his word in wanting to have the strong help the weak. Of course, that means protecting programs like Social Security and Medicare that have done a lot to reduce poverty among the elderly. Ryan would turn these programs into vouchers (Medicare) and 401(k) type plans (Social Security) for those under 55. Of course we have all been told (falsely) since 1980 that these programs are doomed. Apparently Ryan believes the only way to save them is to destroy them. Not so—relatively minor adjustments would do the job. Comparing a program's cash on hand to its future liabilities while ignoring its future revenues is demagoguery of the worst kind designed to create hysteria. A person dedicated to having the strong take care of the weak would propose moderate tax increases on higher wage earners to close the gap.
Our decision here won't make much difference in the presidential race. California's electroal votes seem predestined to go to Obama. But perhaps we can ask those we know elsewhere who they are voting for and why and what they think it will achieve. The real issues are not our anger about the economy or even about the wasteful and destructive foreign wars we are trapped in but rather the philosophy our new leaders will have on the issues framed by Ryan and Romney themselves. How should the strong behave toward the weak? What should we admire more—European democracies and the diversity of California or Latin American right-wing dictatorships and the monoculture of Utah? Our President is our face to the rest of the world and the face of our future. We need to keep that in mind as we cast our votes.
More to follow soon on the down-ticket contests.
Tom Long
Yes indeed. His policies have weakened individuals, businesses, hospitals, and our military. "Europe and California are doing quite well, so that's a good path to be on." The power of public sector unions, coupled with a crass political class, is bankrupting this state with taxes, regulation, and partisan gridlock. Europe is California nation-wide. Do we want to become Greece? "[Romney] has abandoned whatever values he has." Obama has no values beyond promoting himself and making government bigger. "A person dedicated to having the strong take care of the weak would propose moderate tax increases on higher wage earners to close the gap." We've tried that in California, and everyone is the weaker for it. "The real issues are . . .the philosophy our new leaders" -- "Hope and Change" Obama replaced by "Right and Restoration" With Romney and Ryan. Romney-Ryan 2012.
I am now a registered member of neither party, Europe, New York and California all have one thing in common, they have had one party rule for so long, that party has lost touch with who and what they are supposed to be and what the founding fathers envisioned. If chasing the bad apples from both major parties out of this country, is the only way to solve this, that is a tough deal, because I'm sure they want to be good Americans. They just simply lost their way, trying to out democrat or out republican the next guy. Group think destroyed us, those of us not buying into that, now have to take it back and undo all the damage to our liberties.
You are just off a little time wise. The mess the Obama administration started with was courtesy of Mr. Bush. Have we recovered fully in 4 years? No. But we are way better off than where we would have been had we stayed the course. What will Romney and Ryan "restore?" If it's low taxes for the wealthy, why not just take all the money out of your checking account and send it to me? I am in the top 1% and odds are you are not. So why wait? Pay me now! Whatever the difficulties of California may be, it has a higher standard of living than most states and a higher life expectancy and it pays in more money to the federal government than we get back in benefits. It is tolerant of racial, relgisious and cultural diversity. Most states in the US cannot make any of these claims and would be better off if they would become more like California. Europe has problems but it is not all like Greece and again mostly has higher living standards and life expectancies than the US does. Mr. Romney has a wonderul legacy as a moderate Republican governor who brought health care insurance to all in Massechusetts and supported freedom og choice and other important civil liverties. Now he is so deparate to be elected he is attacking his legacy. Let's help preserve that legacy by voting for Obama.
As for transparency, Obama's tax returns are all up on his website for 10 years back. Romney is the first candidate in decades to refuse to disclose his returns. Why? Perhaps it is that he took amnesty for having a secret foreigh account. we know that he raised a lot of money for Bain Capital from foreign investors--including notably supporters of fscist death squads in El Salvador. Who knows. But as the saying goes, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
And lastly, if Obama is re elected, you can count on the stock market crashing by the end of the year before the capital gains taxes go up, there will be a sell off like none other.
College transcripts? Good lord. Romney is hiding his tax returns and likely evading taxes and taking investment money from leaders of fascist death squads and you are worried about college transcripts? Yes banks got de-regulated over time under both Republican and Democratic presidencies but generally with Republicans controlling Congress. But yes there is plenty of blame to go around. But who do you think will me more amenable to giving the bankers what they want? Obama or Romney? Is it really that hard to figure out the answer to that one? I doubt either side will increase capital gainst taxes, but if one does it will likely lead to less selling in the stock market because you will have to hold your investment longer to avoid the taxes. All I can say is I hope there are a lot of fools like you out there. There were in 2008. When the fools panicked and sold, I bought and it worked out very nicely, thank you. I will do so again. So go right ahead.
President Obama had four years to initiate real "hope and change." He failed, and the argument that he needs "four more years" is just endorsing another version of "insanity", for Obama has signaled that he will just do four more years of the same.
In 2009 there was a tax amnesty. Those hiding money illegaly in say Swiss accounts could turn in the income on their returns, pay interest and I think a small penalty, and escape any prosecution. A lof ot smart tax cheats are on the lookout for such amnesties and take them whenever they can. Mr. Romney is smart and has had foreign accounts we have been told. And he is the first candidate in decades not to let us see his returns. To me it would be interesting to know if he claimed the amnesty in 2009. While it is perfectly legal for him to have done so, it would confirm my belief that he is just not honest. You on the other hand have different beliefs. I hope the tooth fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny al bring you what you want this year.
By the end of June of 2000, outstanding derivative contracts — again, possible debts — were worth a total of $94 trillion, while the GDP of the world was $31.6 trillion. And for some reason, even though derivatives were worth nearly three times the size of the world’s economy in 2000, Bill Clinton decided to not regulate them in any way, shape, or form.
In a way you have a point. Any failings on the part of Bush are Clinton's fault and actually Carter's and Truman's and FDR's. In fact all of us are to blame back to the beginning of time. If there isn't a good set of laws in place anticipating everything that might go wrong you cannot possibly look to someone of as "profoundly limited wisdom" as Bush junior to do anything good. In sum you are saying, look, you Democrats knew that eventually we Republicans would elect an idiot to the White House. So to the extent that the idiot let things get out of control, it is all your fault because you did not antitipate what our idiot would do and try to regulate him. Pretty good argument actually. But my preference is still to avoid people electing who are idiots (Bush junior) and who believe in nothing but whatever their pollsters and idiot supporters tell them to believe (Romney and Ryan) and who nominate idiots to be VP (McCain) in the first place. A government of the people, by the people and for the people need not become a government of idiots.
I need your help. Henry Waxman shut me down at an "Open Forum" in Redondo Beach. http://palosverdes.patch.com/blog_posts/henry-waxman-afraid-of-an-open-forum-7edd59ec He is scared of people learning about his record. The voters in the 33rd Congressional District deserve to know the whole record of Congressman Henry Waxman. Please spread the Word: waxmanwatch.blogspot.com End the 38-year tenure of Henry Waxman!
This country has witnessed the efficacy of such free market reforms in 1919-1920; 1946-1947.The Eisenhower years also demonstrated the power of pro-growth, anti-tax and spend principles. If President Obama had cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulations, limit government, there would have been a roaring recovery.
Which one percent? The ones like me who pay over 40% of my income in taxes, or the deadbeats like Romney who pay a much smaller fraction on the rationale that he "creates jobs" by vulture investing of buying up companies, firing everyone and selling the pieces? I am at the low (working) end of the top 1%, not the top of it. I am part of the majority of the top 1% who voted for Obama in 2008.
I had so underestimated the former Bay State Governor. Go Mitt Go!
That's ridiculous. California is broken. There is an exodus of businesses and families leaving California. Ongoing government intrusion, and the unions that buy our politicians, cripples our economy. It is quite difficult to grow a business and raise a family here. Europe and California are not political or economic models for success. Please, everybody. Vote for Romney. Thanks.