Watching CNN today, the various anchors and reporters were discussing at length the tornadoes that wasted Tennessee, Alabama, Kansas, etc. and the death toll that has now risen to 55 at last count. Then CNN turned to the ballot bowl and breaking news that Mitt Romney would suspend his campaign. Well, he did, after whipping up a lot of fury over the internal problems that this nation has been inflicted with. Starting of course with the 1960s, including the Clintons, judges under Obama or Clinton who would be able to go outside of the U.S. Constitution, the need to strengthen families, why is it that government workers make more than those in the private sector... What Romney also seemed to be very hell bent on doing was shifting the blame to everything else than where it should have lay. The welfare state that "created" poverty? Taxes that "depress" workers' wages? When he officially ended his campaign he made a real doozy of a claim, that he didn't want his campaign to contribute to a defeat in the war on terror.
Now, here is my understanding of the matter. Yes, Clinton did cut into military expenditures once the U.S. became the sole superpower. Once the Cold War was over with, unquestionably Clinton did cut funding for intelligence services geared for Cold War intelligence gathering. Leave it to Romney to have no interest in history up and until the 1990s. Yes, terrorism had been around, Islamic terrorism and Red terrorism since the 1970s. But no, whether we are talking about GOP or Dem administrations, we weren't gathering intelligence about terrorists because we were constantly on the alert for the red menace from the Soviet Union. Too bad that Romney's supporters wearing the big red mitts on their fists didn't have an understanding of that history either. Neither did Romney care to acknowledge that under GW, our military forces continued to remain shrunken and as for our intelligence services, they could come under political attack from no less than GW himself if they didn't deliver news he could use for what ever agenda he desired at any time.
And yet, Romney was running against GW when he argues that government workers make more money than those in the private sector. Yeah, and CEOs make far more money than does the President of the United States, tons more money. Romney was such a CEO. Romney put his megabucks into his own campaign. Now that he has suspended it, perhaps he should be asked, how is it he could have the wealth to fund such a campaign? Did he get it because of government tax breaks? Did it come at the expense of the American workforce? Did government contracts guarantee that he would be able to spend tens of millions of dollars of his own money in his own campaign? Did his company go global? Did his company want the cheapest labor possible? After all, this is what 8 years of GW's pro-business policies accomplished for guys like Romney--a business man before he became governor. Romney would never care to blame the CEOs of the private sector. So instead, he'll blame corporate taxes for why the American workforce doesn't have better wages. GW and Congress cut a lot of corporate and investment taxes, yet as Lou Dobbs was to note, the wages of the American workforce stagnated or declined. So taxes have nothing to do with it. And companies should accept regulation if they want to sell quality products that don't sicken or kill people and don't fall apart in a matter of a year for the humongous price paid for it. That isn't doing business. So Romney ranted on to the free ride crowd of supporters the things they wanted to hear, the fantasies and delusions they prefer rather than facing the cold hard facts.
Romney was probably half right that welfare produced poverty and destroyed incentives. He was looking entirely in the wrong direction. Try corporate welfare, of which he has undoubtedly been a beneficiary. Corporations that constantly seek the protection of government in trade and off-shoring of jobs obviously doesn't have an incentive to make the better mousetrap and asks of government itself to give away the store in technological and other advances. And yeah, creates poverty. If the American government and what we call American based businesses truly believed in the free market, this country would continue to be the technological leader instead of say, Japan. Because the businesses would still have an incentive to build the better mousetrap as the means to the much improved bottom line rather than seeking getting richest fastest and in the process, committing hari kari.
The big government religious activists in Romney's audience loved the idea that government should be there to make the families strong and protect the "sanctity of life." In all of 8 years of the GW administration, I haven't seen one move on the part of his government to do that. And given that GW wants to cut deeply into Medicare and the funding for the CDC, those are definite moves against the family and the sanctity of life. But we all know what such folks want, that in a democracy put in place a government that supports their views of God. A government that is both theocratic and extremist. Does the U.S. Constitution argue that government should satisfy religious activist groups? It does not. Of regulating what sort of families should exist in this country? It does not. Well then, if Romney had become president, would he not have appointed judges with a clear mandate to step outside the constitution? Yes.
Romney agreed with McCain that we should do what it takes (and here the fear mongering takes root) to fight and destroy Al Qaeda (you can view his speech on CNN.com). Wow. And we should simply stay in Iraq long enough to do that. Al Qaeda has already proved that it doesn't have to be based in any one country, its training camps can be set up anywhere. It can attack anywhere, it can recruit anywhere. Both Clinton and Obama acknowledge the serious threat that Al Qaeda will always be as long as they "hate what we are" that is, not being Muslims like themselves. And Romney wishes to fuel the fires of hatred by "hating all that they stand for" not being Christians like himself. At what point do we prioritize our resources to effectively fight and destroy Al Qaeda? GW chose to go after Saddam Hussein for reasons that had little to do with the terrorist threat and achieved guaranteeing the continuing of the terrorist threat in Iraq. So, wasn't it the GOP that actually surrendered to terrorism? Given McCain's stance, we can continue to see a guarantee of policy failures should he actually become president. And a guarantee that terrorism will thrive under his administration. Because of GW, we have already been defeated in that war on terror. If we want to win it, we need a new direction. With a leader willing to win such a war. McCain has already promised he is not up to the task.
Now, here is my understanding of the matter. Yes, Clinton did cut into military expenditures once the U.S. became the sole superpower. Once the Cold War was over with, unquestionably Clinton did cut funding for intelligence services geared for Cold War intelligence gathering. Leave it to Romney to have no interest in history up and until the 1990s. Yes, terrorism had been around, Islamic terrorism and Red terrorism since the 1970s. But no, whether we are talking about GOP or Dem administrations, we weren't gathering intelligence about terrorists because we were constantly on the alert for the red menace from the Soviet Union. Too bad that Romney's supporters wearing the big red mitts on their fists didn't have an understanding of that history either. Neither did Romney care to acknowledge that under GW, our military forces continued to remain shrunken and as for our intelligence services, they could come under political attack from no less than GW himself if they didn't deliver news he could use for what ever agenda he desired at any time.
And yet, Romney was running against GW when he argues that government workers make more money than those in the private sector. Yeah, and CEOs make far more money than does the President of the United States, tons more money. Romney was such a CEO. Romney put his megabucks into his own campaign. Now that he has suspended it, perhaps he should be asked, how is it he could have the wealth to fund such a campaign? Did he get it because of government tax breaks? Did it come at the expense of the American workforce? Did government contracts guarantee that he would be able to spend tens of millions of dollars of his own money in his own campaign? Did his company go global? Did his company want the cheapest labor possible? After all, this is what 8 years of GW's pro-business policies accomplished for guys like Romney--a business man before he became governor. Romney would never care to blame the CEOs of the private sector. So instead, he'll blame corporate taxes for why the American workforce doesn't have better wages. GW and Congress cut a lot of corporate and investment taxes, yet as Lou Dobbs was to note, the wages of the American workforce stagnated or declined. So taxes have nothing to do with it. And companies should accept regulation if they want to sell quality products that don't sicken or kill people and don't fall apart in a matter of a year for the humongous price paid for it. That isn't doing business. So Romney ranted on to the free ride crowd of supporters the things they wanted to hear, the fantasies and delusions they prefer rather than facing the cold hard facts.
Romney was probably half right that welfare produced poverty and destroyed incentives. He was looking entirely in the wrong direction. Try corporate welfare, of which he has undoubtedly been a beneficiary. Corporations that constantly seek the protection of government in trade and off-shoring of jobs obviously doesn't have an incentive to make the better mousetrap and asks of government itself to give away the store in technological and other advances. And yeah, creates poverty. If the American government and what we call American based businesses truly believed in the free market, this country would continue to be the technological leader instead of say, Japan. Because the businesses would still have an incentive to build the better mousetrap as the means to the much improved bottom line rather than seeking getting richest fastest and in the process, committing hari kari.
The big government religious activists in Romney's audience loved the idea that government should be there to make the families strong and protect the "sanctity of life." In all of 8 years of the GW administration, I haven't seen one move on the part of his government to do that. And given that GW wants to cut deeply into Medicare and the funding for the CDC, those are definite moves against the family and the sanctity of life. But we all know what such folks want, that in a democracy put in place a government that supports their views of God. A government that is both theocratic and extremist. Does the U.S. Constitution argue that government should satisfy religious activist groups? It does not. Of regulating what sort of families should exist in this country? It does not. Well then, if Romney had become president, would he not have appointed judges with a clear mandate to step outside the constitution? Yes.
Romney agreed with McCain that we should do what it takes (and here the fear mongering takes root) to fight and destroy Al Qaeda (you can view his speech on CNN.com). Wow. And we should simply stay in Iraq long enough to do that. Al Qaeda has already proved that it doesn't have to be based in any one country, its training camps can be set up anywhere. It can attack anywhere, it can recruit anywhere. Both Clinton and Obama acknowledge the serious threat that Al Qaeda will always be as long as they "hate what we are" that is, not being Muslims like themselves. And Romney wishes to fuel the fires of hatred by "hating all that they stand for" not being Christians like himself. At what point do we prioritize our resources to effectively fight and destroy Al Qaeda? GW chose to go after Saddam Hussein for reasons that had little to do with the terrorist threat and achieved guaranteeing the continuing of the terrorist threat in Iraq. So, wasn't it the GOP that actually surrendered to terrorism? Given McCain's stance, we can continue to see a guarantee of policy failures should he actually become president. And a guarantee that terrorism will thrive under his administration. Because of GW, we have already been defeated in that war on terror. If we want to win it, we need a new direction. With a leader willing to win such a war. McCain has already promised he is not up to the task.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment