Money for Mitt Romney but not the nation
Posted on Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at 09:57 AM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
72 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Violent attacks on gays in New York up 70 percent in 2013
- Will New York Senator Chuck Schumer ditch gay couples for an immigration deal?
- If nobody's happy, it's working – the abortion debate and Irish politics of stalemate
- Conservative news entertainment complex claim Barack Obama leader of Al Qaeda
- Why Irish grudges are passed on - a long tradition of never forgetting
Archives
As the rest of the world develops new technologies, bolsters its space programs and discovers new subatomic particles, here in the United States Mitt Romney's visionary plan for our future involves throwing 30 million people off Obamacare and ballooning the deficit through further unproductive tax cuts to rich people like himself who don't need them.
After that he'll rest presumably.
Then on the eight day he'll probably de-fund Planned Parenthood and commence throwing the gays out of the military, the City Hall's, the Pentagon, the White House and Utah, possibly.
It will be back to the future. What I don't expect from Mitt Romney is any departure from the aims, objectives, philosophies, foreign policies or achievements of the George W. Bush administration. (Yes I just wrote the achievements of the George W. Bush administration).
Meanwhile, commentators are saying it's looking increasingly like Romney paid no taxes at all in 2009. Not one thin dime. And when he does actually pay taxes he pays only 14 percent, which at his level of annual income is next to nothing.
It's standard practice for presidential candidates to release at least six or ten years of back tax returns. They do this to illustrate to the rabble that they are regular citizens, insofar as that goes.
We have never had a richer candidate for the office. We have never had a candidate receive more record funding from billionaires. We have never had a candidate that has thumbed his nose at the ordinary contingencies of the political vetting process in the entitled way that Romney has. Could these things be connected?
Romney lives in an alternative America, the one where even your car has its own dedicated elevator. It's the America where he hasn't answered to the little people in his life. He's not about to start now.
The rich, wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald, are different. They have enough money to sound proof the walls. Shouts of outrage and anger do not reach them. They never have and they never will.
Meanwhile in the real America that you and I live in, you know the one with the working stiffs fighting to get (or keep) a job, balance their bank account, keep the phone connected and the lights on - the nation where more and more people are ruminating darkly about the health and likelihood of a functioning democracy - well against all odds things have been slowly improving for us. There's a sliver of light on the horizon.
But Romney and his cadre of fat cat billionaires want to refinance that silver lining, offer it sub prime loans with the option to renegotiate, then they want to move it offshore to China where they can avail of non-union wage drops and unsafe working conditions to produce it a much lower cost.
We're told there's no money to invest in the nation's economy, in health care, in industry, in infrastructure, in construction, or in our stagnant wages. But there's no limit on the amount being donated to the candidate who will best serve billionaires.
There truly is two America's. They never see each other now. Mitt Romney will never live where the rest of do.
72 comments
Next
Page 1 of 5 pages
lokionline | Jul 24, 2012, 01:08 PM EDT
Commies under the bed?
Has anyone seen "Pleasantville" the movie?
Do people really want to live in a version of the 50s minus the rising expectations and growth that were common then?
That's the vision Romney and the Republican party is offering. It lacks any color but black and white.
Has anyone seen "Pleasantville" the movie?
Do people really want to live in a version of the 50s minus the rising expectations and growth that were common then?
That's the vision Romney and the Republican party is offering. It lacks any color but black and white.
Report abuse
McNamara31 | Jul 24, 2012, 10:47 AM EDT
Madeliene "Get the communist out of our house" Really? Try to open a book or a newspaper once in a while;it might open your mind.If that doesn't work look up the definition of a communist.Many Americans are really sick of these stale old Fox-isms and people who intentionally slander in the name of politics should be confronted for it.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jul 23, 2012, 03:36 PM EDT
Reds under the beds, commie alert! Madeliene has drunk the Kool Aid and has the answer-- Romney-- to keep the govt chasing commies, tailing Talibans, harassing liberals. The hope is to distract us so we lose track of whose Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island fake corporations the money is flowing into.
Report abuse
seanomelb | Jul 22, 2012, 07:02 PM EDT
Madeliene with the siege mentality.
Report abuse
Madeliene | Jul 22, 2012, 02:43 PM EDT
I hope to God, Mr Romney gets elected, and get's the communist out of OUR HOUSE. This writer is delusional, and is pandering to the left wing liberal jalousy that the liberals are all suffering from. It is a sickness that will destroy their own Freedoms, and then their free food trough will be empty, and when they look up, America will be just a memory.
Report abuse
Madeliene | Jul 21, 2012, 09:29 PM EDT
I would argue the point but then I would be deleted, why bother.
Report abuse
McNamara31 | Jul 21, 2012, 11:25 AM EDT
occassio Well said and a welcome addition to the conversation.
Report abuse
McNamara31 | Jul 21, 2012, 11:23 AM EDT
BrianO and peterson... The "stale" old game of smear and inference, that obama is not one of us, is getting "really old" as is all the other Fox-ism's and will not work in 2012.The only people still using them, are those who don't care about truth or facts, or do not have the ability to determine between fact and the Fox/Roger Ailes/Karl Rove type of smear campaign.
Report abuse
BrianO | Jul 21, 2012, 01:56 AM EDT
@eiriamach, my response to your question and other comments on other articles have been scrubbed, sorry I cannot give a response, so enjoy all non dissenting opinion.
Report abuse
BrianO | Jul 21, 2012, 01:46 AM EDT
seano just repeating what obama said about himself, so how does he get into the best colleges when he's disinterested and on dope?
Report abuse
BrianO | Jul 21, 2012, 01:45 AM EDT
read obamas writings, what you can find pre book and writing in his book, very different styles. It would be similar to my writng as primitive as it is, magically becoming as eloquent as eiriamach.
Report abuse
seanomelb | Jul 20, 2012, 07:54 PM EDT
Briano smoking weed on the roof of the white house when daddy was president is hardly a ringing endorsement.Peterson read Obama's book it's loaded with "stuff"
Report abuse
peterson | Jul 20, 2012, 06:40 PM EDT
Mitt is still a better choice than Obama. How ;come we cannot find Obama's past history ? He must be hiding a lot of "stuff" !!
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jul 20, 2012, 03:54 PM EDT
A comment on "elite" US higher education: whether Elizabeth Warren checked off "Native American" on her application is a moot point. She did not need Affirmative Action help to gain admission. She entered George Washington U at age 16 on academic scholarship and later worked on Rutgers' Law Review. In general, highly selective universities like GWU and Harvard have far more fully qualified applicants than they can admit, they reject many who are highly qualified, so they admit no affirmative action applicants who are not already fully qualified by their high academic criteria. But they pursue diversity vigorously, and they generally succeed in getting it. At less selective universities, AA or Veteran status or a family tradition of contributing to the university fund may give an applicant an edge over other equally qualified applicants, but not at schools like Harvard that can pick and choose from the best qualified. Neither Warren nor Obama needed special help getting in. Warren could have gone to a better law school than Rutgers, which she chose because her husband worked in NJ; later, Harvard hired her to teach in its law school. Did they have any special help? Yes, both being working-class, both got good financial aid. (That's my guess.)
Report abuse
Next
Page 1 of 5 pages
Report abuse