Why This Election Is So Close

It's very clear why this election is so close:  If it's not racism; it's absolute intentional misinformation.

I don't think I can convince Thor, but maybe you, dear reader, can convince... somebody.

I found the following very long comment from "Thor" at Bloomberg's Business Week in an article about Democrats holding an early voting advantage.  To be honest, there are so many misconceptions coloring this person's feelings that I don't think I can rebut all that he says.  I've left the spelling and sentence structure as is; I can't tell if the person writing is foreign or just not well educated.  However, "Thor" has put so many Republican talking points together and the election is getting closer, so this will be one of my last attempts to provide a comprehensive retort to such a diatribe.

From the content of Thor's comments, it is unlikely that this man has anything to gain from a Romney/Ryan "let the rich get richer" presidency.  But he's been sold quite a bill of goods.  His comments are in blue, mine below in black:

Obama's Accomplishments 

Mit Romey should win the Presidency. Why? Becuse President Obama and it's staff was a complete failure managing, reforming, and trying to make changes for this great nation. I don't think that I could count five different things that the Obama's staff/party did accomplish correctly for the good of all people of this nation during the last four years.

Try Googling "Obama's accomplishments".  You will find many more than five.   If you can't list five things that Obama has done for this country, you are too uninformed to vote.

Start with this link right here:  Please Cut the Crap!

Inflation

Instead, what we experienced was food prices and gasoline prices went up;

national deficit went up by the trillions of dollars;

The inflation rate under Obama has been LOWER than the inflation rate under ANY president going back to perhaps Kennedy (quick look).  Check out the Misery Index, both the monthly and yearly rates.  And gasoline prices are now coming down after a spike this summer.  Compare the gas prices this year with that under George Bush.

The National Debt

national deficit went up by the trillions of dollars;

Please, Thor, old buddy.  Let's remember that Republicans complaining about the debt (not the deficit...look up the difference) are like pigeons complaining about bird droppings.  

Since you did mention the deficit, I bet you don't know that the yearly budget deficit has increased the lowest as a percent under Obama's administration than all presidential administrations going back decades?  (When I find that link, I will post it.)  

Taxes on the middle and lower classes? 

midlle and poor class people were tax when he did promise that he would not do that;

No source; no idea what you are talking about here, Thor, as taxes have been lower under Obama than under any recent president.

Unemployment

un-employment went up;

Thor, sweetie, did you really just climb out from under a rock in January 2009?  Obama inherited the WORST RECESSION in 80 years.  WORST ONE.  We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took office.  We had already lost 4.6 million jobs by the time Obama took office.  And:  Do you remember what was going on in this country in January 2009?

And now unemployment is going down.  Here's a little chart for you, Thor--

And a link with a bit more information:  What Was the Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office Compared To Now?

         
Food Stamps

people on food stamps went up by 16 million people;

Rinse, lather, repeat.  Obama inherited the WORST economic disaster in 80 years.  This country was teetering at the brink of a massive second Great Depression and we pulled ourselves out of it with help from policies introduced and supported by Obama and the Democrats.  Because so many people went without jobs, because eligibility for SNAP was loosened in a few ways due to the recovery act, we do have more people on food stamps, but the numbers appear to have peaked and are heading down.  Here's a great read on Food Stamps.  Thank heavens we have food stamps.  I don't think we would be a very good country if this country, such a rich country with so many rich and middle class people, allowed unlucky people to starve on the street, do you?  Well, maybe you do.  

And if you are going to name a "Food stamp president", you might want to finger George Bush:   

Medicare Savings

medicare was cut off out of 716 billion dollars that covers our senior citizens health care;

I've already addressed this on this blog.  It's not too difficult to find the CORRECT information about the 718 billion in Medicare SAVINGS; I'll repeat:  SAVINGS that will protect Medicare for an extra either years.  


Health Care Reform

in addition, its health care reform do not provide us as citizens the choice to choose our own doctors because it takes our freedom to choose doctors that might be better out of their network; 

This is another "Huh?"  Where did you get that information?  It is completely wrong.  You can choose your own doctor.  Why in the world would you assume that all of the "better" doctors are going to leave your network (if that's what you mean)?  Come on, Thor, stop watching Fox News.  Have you talked to your doctor?  Is he/she planning on leaving his/her practice due to ObamaCares?  

Gas prices/companies going overseas

plus the government did not stop the outregeous increase of fuel prices as well as it did not control the exit of many companies living U.S. soil to do business else where in the world.

Umm.....  Did the government stop the "outregeous" increase of fuel prices under Bush?  Did you support Bush?  You do understand that there isn't that much the president can do about fuel prices, right?  Or do you believe that the Keystone pipeline is the answer to our fuel problems?

About companies "living U.S. soil":  Where's your source on that?  You do realize that outsourcing has been going on for decades now.. and it has generally gotten worse under Republican presidents?  Because of their pro-business anti-worker policies? 

Embassy Security

Furthermore, the government demonstrate their weakness on Embasy security procedures and the lack of U.S. protection abroad.

Nonsense.  We've had attacks on American interests abroad for decades now.  Actually, it's gotten much better under Obama.  So.. ask yourself: Will Romney Protect Our Embassies? 

Immigration Reform 

And for the latin and the Asian people mostly he promise an immigration reform that never happen.

Source on that one?  You have heard about the DREAM act, I take it?  The Republicans filibustered it time and time again.  Check that link to the Wikipedia entry about the DREAM act.  

So President Obama did what he could without Congressional approval; he issued a memorandum "Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals"  so that young people who came to this country at a young age can stay here without fear of deportation.

Obama deceives through his speeches? 

The true is that if we were blind we would continue to vote for Obama because he is a great speaker and knows how to deceive the public opinion to do its will.

Well, he obviously isn't as great a speaker as you think he is because you have been deceived and lied to by...  Fox?  Breitbart?  Limbaugh?  Hannity?  Other right wing blogs?  So I would say that they are much better deceivers than Obama, at least for you and others who think as you do.  You accept lies as truths; you don't research anything; you post things that I've never even heard of; things that are easily debunked by a little thing called Google.

"No Good Results"

However, for people like me that measure up the capabilities and dedication and responsibilities of the president as a top manager; the true is that he don't deserve the position that we gave him four years ago during the elections where he offered us a ton of changes and now four years later we cannot see any good results for the people of this great nation.

Wow.  You are gullible.  Who tells you these things?  Did you really vote for Obama four years ago?

As I said above, start by Googling "Obama's Accomplishments".  Keep reading until you can rattle off at least ten accomplishments by memory.

Then check out Politifact on Obama's promises from 2008.  Now check out Politifact's "pants on fire" ratings of both  Obama (and some of his "pants on fire" stories go all the way back to 2008) and by Romney during this campaign and in the debates.  You can click around over there and see their total ratings; here's Obama's and here's Romney's.

The Economy

In my book, no matter whether is the manager of a regular company in the private sector or the government, we should always remove out of office those people that are incaple to produce excellent results and have a clear vision of what needs to be done to achieve great results for the good of all people.

That's why I consider a joke to vote for President Obama this year. He already proof that he cannot perform its duties and responsibilities toward changing the economy around in a positive way and/or giving this great nation a secure life for generations to come.

A secure life for generations to come?  Look at what has happened to this country under decades of Republican economic influence:  Income inequality has never been higher.  You can no longer raise and support a family on one income.  Unions are at a low ebb, which is one of the reasons why income inequality is so extreme.  For the past 12 years, we have not had a vibrant economy and a decent unemployment rate such as we had in the 50's, 60's, most of the 70's and even into the 80's and 90's.  Any gains that may be forthcoming under Obama would be turned around lickety-split by the Romney 5-point plan for middle class regression.

Unfortunately for you and other ill-informed Republicans, the economy is and has been turning around for months-- well, actually, years--- now.

Try this:     "This is the Biggest Economic Story in the World!"  and here's what private job creation looks like during Obama's administration:

Romney/Ryan have a "vast experience as excellent governors". 

In that case, I consider that Mit Romey/Ryan with their vast experience as excellent governors might may the difference that we are looking for to bring back this great nation to be number one in the world instead of the current joke that we are experiencing right now.

Paul Ryan was NOT a governor. He was and is a representative to the United States Congress from the state of Wisconsin.  He voted for every budget-busting measure under Bush.  He voted "NO" again and again to most of the policies that Obama and Democrats enacted or tried to enact to help the middle class, including small business owners.  He voted NO to any jobs bill that came along, except Republican "jobs" bills that were really anti-environmental jobs bills.

The United States under Obama has begun to repair its reputation around the world.  Just one quick link about the opinion of Obama in Europe; I'll try to find more.

Romney as a Governor

Romey is the best man for the job this time around and its prior achievements as Governor is a big plus to its success.

You've got to be kidding.  Or just completely ignorant of the facts of Mass under Mitt.  He was a complete and utter failure as the governor of Massachusetts, which is why he is losing by something like 30 points in his "home state".  Massachusetts was 47th in job creation during his tenure.  He knew nothing about bipartisan compromise as he vetoed something like 800 bills passed by the Democratically controlled Massachusetts state legislature and 700 of those vetoes were overridden.  There are many other complaints easy to find (I'll come back and post a few more links.) about the state of Massachusetts' budget, about teachers, about roads.  The best thing he did in Massachusetts was Romneycare which was the proto-type for ObamaCares which you spurn... even though millions of people may live better and longer lives due to the provisions of ObamaCares.

And unemployment under Mitt in Mass was not good at all.  Romney was NOT a job creator in Massachusetts.  

The Best Man for the Job 

We the americans should always choose the best man for the job no by looking to what party affiliation the man comes from but by its life achievements toward the welfare and care of its people and its nation.

Sigh and double sigh.

Thor, good man.  Look, I doubt that you will ever read this.  It is clear that your mind is made up and that "facts" and sources will simply not dissuade you.  You have been convinced that Obama is bad for the country, despite all that he has done for you and me and all of us, under the most trying circumstances in 80 years; and you are convinced that Romney will somehow help the country despite his decades of experience as a business outsourcer/vulture capitalist and his one term as a not-very-well-regarded governor in Massachusetts.  

He lies and lies again and changes his positions to fit whatever way the wind may be blowing today.  He used to complain about FEMA helping out disaster victims.. but that was last year when he was trending right to get the Republican nod.  Now, in the middle of this disaster on the East Coast, he will probably start dancing around that one as well.

In any way, I hope that you and I will never have to find out how truly destructive Mitt Romney as President would be for this country.  Because deep in your heart (unless you are a mega rich person, which I doubt), you probably are a good, decent, but completely misinformed guy, and I pray for you that Obama will be re-elected.  You deserve a solid, healthy life.  And you won't get that from Mitt and the Republicans.  

Neither will I.

The Irresponsible 47%: Lazy Moochers from a Christian Perspective

And About Christians...

"An aurora borealis of elitist douchebaggery".

Have people really forgotten Mitt Romney's condemnation of 47% of the people whom he and his rich friends decry as people who are "entitled"?  People who don't take personal responsibility?  People who are "victims"?  People who include the elderly, the working poor, students, veterans, the disabled, low income people with children?

Have we forgotten Jon Stewart's great commentary about this, emphasizing Romney's disdain for those who feel that they are "entitled to foooood?"  

Romney didn't seem like a very nice guy in that video, unless, of course, you have millions of bucks stashed away in offshore accounts and you want to keep every last penny of those bucks.. or at least not provide for those coddled 47%, you know, the catfood contingent.

A new video to remind us of what Mitt Romney is all about:

In case you have forgotten what Mitt & Company is all about, here's a video by Actually... to remind you.. a video which includes the golden phrase, "an aurora borealis of elitist douchebaggery".

After you get done watching, don't forget the usual complaints by the hard-working oh so superior (and often Christian) "makers" against those lazy loafing "takers"..which truly annoyed the hell out of me.. as usual.

From Martin at Progressive Centralists at Facebook:

Listen to Mitt speaking to his 'base' at the fundraiser. if you haven't heard the clip in a while, it's shocking just how relaxed and 'honest' he is with his fellow billionaires while demonizing half the country.

Yep, you've got that right, Martin.

A Christian perspective from "Autumn" on Mitt's lack of concern for the lazy loafers who make up 47% of the population (emphasis mine, bad spelling hers):

So what? Yeah he over-exaggerated when he said 47% as referring to the country at large, but he is right. There are too many people who act like the are "entitled" to free healthcare, food, housing, and many other things. Government programs are good when they are used right. The welfare and social security systems are being abused tremendously. Many able-bodied people simply make up excuses as to why they can't work and need government assistance. They know how to work the system by lying. Get off your lazy buts and try to do something! 

People today are lazy. If you give them jobs, they won't take them! I see this every day. It's pathetic how many places are hiring, and there are people walking around saying "I need a job". But if you tell them the Huddle House nearby is hiring, they say "I'm not working at a place like that!". Well YOU NEED A JOB DON'T YOU?!!

I looked up this woman on Facebook.  Her page had a number of biblical references and quotes; she was a "Christian."  So I took keyboard in hand and replied: 

Why do people who lean right always assume that a big portion of the people who are on government programs are abusing them? I hear this kind of thinking over and over: "Well, they are fine for people who really need them, but too many people are just gaming the system." Their stories about people who abuse the social safety net always refer to people they see buying steaks with food stamps and loading them into a Lexus; a lazy brother-in-law who brags about how he is doing nothing while collecting unemployment, a neighbor who is supposed to be on disability but was seen up on his roof nailing down shingles.

They don't consider rich Republicans who got in on government programs, oil executives who lobby for subsidies, or other corporate lobbyists who do whatever they can to pay less in taxes and get more from the government to be lazy or abusive-- it's the guy who got laid off and actually watches t.v. sometimes instead of looking for a job 20 hours a day. That guy is lazy. That's the guy who is "stealing" from them.) 

When you challenge these people on reporting these supposed leeches, they always have some excuse: "Well, I don't know for sure." "It's the governments job to police these programs." "Nobody will do anything anyway."

My point is this: If you know one of these lazy moochers taking advantage of you and all of the hard-working people who haven't been fortunate enough to be laid off, to be old, to have some kind of chronic illness or disability, do your civic duty: Report them! Otherwise keep your hypocritical mouth shut and your hypocritical fingers away from the keyboard. (And most of the people who seem to take this point of view seem to be younger, healthier, and have good jobs. I don't see that many people who are old and sick going around trashing other people who are old, sick, unemployed, or perhaps underemployed. I find myself actually wishing that some of these "makers" would have an accident or an illness just so that they can learn the meaning of compassion.) 

Since you seem, Autumn, to be intimately acquainted with a whole slew of these lazy moochers, why don't you keep a little notebook with you? When you go up to one of your unemployed neighbors or friends with a Bachelor's degree and suggest they get a job at Huddle House and they tell you that they would much rather live on $300 a week than work at Huddle House, you can write their names down and call them into the unemployment fraud hotline. Now, tell us, Autumn, how many of these lazy down and out people have you actually come across in the past year? 

By the way, I know a couple of young people who were looking for summer jobs this past summer. They went to every place in the local area with a "help wanted" sign and talked to whomever they could talk to and left copies of their resumes.  They did not get ONE job or one call back from any of those dozens of resumes that they left. They both eventually got jobs through friends and family. It's like the big McDonald's hiring day last year: Hundreds of thousands of people came into apply for about 50,000 jobs. Most of those hundreds of thousands of people did not get hired. What your friend who spurned Huddle House may know is that if he/she has training in some other area or has a bachelor's degree, he/she won't get hired at Huddle House due to that whole "overqualified" bit. 

Maybe you will be fortunate enough in the coming decades to be tossed out of your well-paying professional job after decades of solid experience at age 50 or 60 and you too will know the joy of being rejected from lower-level jobs because you are "overqualified". 

Finally, Autumn, you and others who complain about lazy moochers often post all kinds of quotes from Jesus or the New Testament all over your Facebook pages. I bet that Jesus actually had a few of his more cynical apostles giving those throngs of people the third degree to determine just how needy they REALLY were before they got any loaves or fishes. I bet Jesus didn't heal the sick unless he thought they were REALLY sick and had a stack of documentation to prove such.  After all, so many people who say they need help are just lying!  Jesus would weed them out! 

I really don't get it:  How can the same people who say, "Most of the people who are needy are just lazy and they are sponging off of me" also claim to be Christians? Don't people study the New Testament in Sunday school these days? Is it the same New Testament that I read when I was young? Some people do not have the ability to "walk a mile in another's shoes" mentally... they have to actually struggle to understand what it is like to.. struggle. And others will not understand the meaning of "judge not lest ye be judged" until someone is looking at them as if they are lazy or selfish because they need a government program. 

And yet these same people who judge, who are sure that everybody else is a "taker" while they are very superior "makers" call themselves Christians. Shame.

Donald Trump's October Surprise Isn't

(March 14, 2016 note:  This was written in October 2012, in the runup to the 2012 Presidential elections.  And now this "moving, loud, obnoxious gaper's block" is a front-running Presidential candidate. Stunning. Truly stunning.) 

(September 12, 2016 update:  I wrote this article in 2012.  Never in my wildest imagination did I think that Trump would be a REAL candidate for Prez in 2016, that he would WIN the Republican nomination, and that he would seriously challenge for the office of President!  What is happening to our country?)

Classic Donald w/ Bad Hair

I admit that he had me.  

I just had to look up The Donald's "Surprise" as soon as it was announced, and I felt the same as when I watch "Intervention" on T.V. ...   I know I shouldn't do it, and I feel slimy afterwards, but it's that kind of bizarre pull that makes good people stare at an auto accident... and The Donald is truly nothing more than a moving, loud, obnoxious gaper's block.

Donald Trump has been broadcasting for days now an "October surprise" that would be a game changer in the November election.  Though most people and most media outlets were sure this was nothing, there was still that strange pull to the gaper's block with the bad combover.  Rumors were swirling as to what the revelation would be:  More about Obama's drug use while in college decades ago (which Obama himself has already made public?)  More about supposed divorce papers written up by Michelle Obama when she and the Prez were having a bad spell back in the early 2000's?  Michelle Obama herself has admitted they were having some difficult times back then.. which they worked through. 

But no, none of the above.    

From Michael Sidky on Facebook.. Credit below

This "classy" guy, who has declared bankruptcy 3 or 4 times now, who has overlapped wives, and who has impressed t.v. audiences by being a big jerk who obviously gets some kind of sadistic joy from firing people (just like someone else the Republicans know and love), is now challenging... actually bribing... the President of the United States, Barack Obama (who has more class in one toe than Trump has in his entire bloated body) to reveal his college applications and transcripts.  Trump's bribe is that if Obama does release these documents, he will pay 5 million dollars to the charity of Obama's choice.

The Obama campaign swatted away the offer as one would swat off an obnoxious fly.  They suggested that the press talk to the Romney campaign about the "offer" as The Donald and The Willard are tight.

I love Jason Linkin's take on this at the Huffington Post:  

Was Donald Trump's Announcement A Gigantic, Pointless Waste Of Time Promulgated By A Venal Con Artist?

To which the one word answer is "Yes!".

Just found this morning on Facebook:

Found on Facebook.. I can't read the credit, however.

Trump's a Chump 

Addicting Info headlines this UnDrama with "Trump's a Chump".  We couldn't have said it better.  AI also speculates that there is some information about to come down the pike on Romney, brought to us by Gloria Allred.  I personally do not feel that this will go anywhere, but it is interesting speculation.     

Let's not forget this charming incident from back in the spring.  Addicting Info blasted the colorful headline "Donald Trump Sexually Harasses Nation" about Trump's "offer" to feminist attorney Gloria Allred:   Allred was representing transgendered Jenna Talackova, a contestant in Donald's Miss Universe pageant.  

Ms. Talackova had been kicked out of the contest:

"with the argument that contestants must be “natural-born women,” although it states nothing of the sort in the rules. In a comment to Trump..., Allred said that Talackova, “didn’t ask Mr. Trump to prove he’s a naturally born man, or see photos of his birth, or to view his anatomy … It made no difference to her.” 

So of course, the natural response to not being asked to produce his junk is to offer to produce his junk…if Allred pays him. Later, just in case there was any question, Trump called into TMZ just to say, “I think Gloria would be very very impressed with [my penis].”

Ah, yes, the Onion:

The Onion gets it right:  Trump announced that he is a very sad man.

"In a blockbuster announcement today, Donald Trump announced that he is a very sad man who has nothing to live for other than drawing attention to himself. "I'm a sad, pathetic human being and a complete waste of life," said Trump, adding that he lives an empty existence, and that he is nothing more than a corporate shill..."  

Yep, it is satire, but the bizarre thing is that the Onion doesn't even have to write much satire this year with so many bizarre stories coming from the Republicans.

If you still have any questions about those "sealed" Obama records, Factcheck is your friend HERE.

No, The Donald isn't running, but do we really want this guy to have any influence in the national political discourse at all?  What if Romney appointed him Secretary of Commerce?  Or Secretary of Labor?

Crazy hair photo found HERE.  What is that in The Donald's hair?

Binders Full of Women

No, Mitt Romney!  I'm a real woman!  I don't fit in a binder!

(This binder was published by the Democratic Party on Facebook and shared by 28,000+, among them Americans Against the Tea Party , where I first found this photo.)

Romney did NOT say "binders full of women's resumes" or "binders full of women's names", either of which would have been much less offensive.  He said "binders full of women".  Which objectified and offended.

Perhaps some men don't understand why a competent woman would not want to be considered as stuck in a a "binder" somewhere.  Perhaps there are some women who didn't react as I reacted; after all, I don't like Romney anyway..  

But for me and hundreds of thousands like me, and for hundreds of thousands of supportive men, it made a difference, a big difference.

The Story Behind the Binders

The full story of these "binders full of women" is coming out, and it isn't quite as Mitt Romney said.  Apparently a group in Massachusetts in 2002 (when the governor's race was ongoing) concerned about the lack of women in higher level state jobs, searched out competent women and put together a series of binders containing the resumes of the competent women that they found.  It was a non-partisan project, and they intended to give the binders to whoever was elected governor, Republican or Democrat.  But Romney didn't send out people from his incoming administration to find these women; he already had these binders full of competent women's names and resumes. 

Just a misspeak, say the Republican apologists.  He just made a minor gaffe, they prattle.  We all know that he meant "binders full of resumes of women", and that 's a good thing because it meant that he was reaching out to put women in his administration.  

Well, buy that malarkey if you wish; I don't.  No, Romney's gaffe means much more:  As governor of Massachusetts, he knew he should put women into many more administrative positions, not necessarily because they were competent, but probably because it was "the politically correct thing to do".  He just didn't have that many names of women to nominate for these positions at his disposal.  We don't know why.  So he went to the "binders" to pick out a few.  You know, just pull out a few names, like some guy looking for a mail-order foreign bride.     

As Jennifer on Facebook put it:

I love the way he said this remark makes it seem like they kept binders full of token women in the unlikely event of suspected employment discrimination. Hurry up and hire some broads! We have too many men and we can't afford a lawsuit!

Right, Jennifer, that's the way it sounded to me as well.

Ray wrote:

I almost fell off my chair. A Republican who doesn't like affirmative action suggesting he supported quotas on women. Priceless, lies......

A great status from  The Saul Alinsky Elite French Foundation on Facebook:

Letters from the binder....

Seriously, I'm trapped in here and I can't get out. Someone send for help. My husband needs me to make dinner, since he's incapable of doing it himself. I'm afraid he may burn down the house or lose a few fingers if he tries. HELP! 

Just a few stories and links about the "binders full of women" stuff:

• 
  
• How Mitt Romney Had Whole Binders of Women for Staff Positions 
• "Binders Full of Women" website  by the American Bridge 21st Century PAC:

"Mitt Romney says he has “binders full of women,” but maybe he should try listening to what actual women have to say. We want to make that happen.

If you donate $10 or more right now, American Bridge will deliver a binder full of FACTS about women to Mitt Romney’s campaign headquarters."

Who Cares About Our Veterans?

Senator Webb and the Democrats stand with our veterans. Republicans? Not so much.

Facebook via the Democratic Party of Virginia.

Some discussion at the comments to this picture:

From Bob C:  

I served as a Marine officer for 8 years. Are they owed, yes. I wish Senator Webb would expand on that.

Today's military personnel have incredible opportunities to lean a trade, get an education, etc. I have hired many vets and will continue to do so. Deployed active duty military and civilians serving our nation abroad are exempt from paying taxes. That is the law. They are not part of Romney's 47%.

The ones that Romney is pointing to are the freeloaders. The ones who abuse the system and take advantage of the system. I am going to research veterans bill votes to see what that entails. I am also going to research the culture of necessity comments also because I have a hard time buying into the concept of multigenerational poverty in a country as great as ours. I don't despise and scorn the poor. People do encounter setbacks and help should be temporary. I will do my homework and post the results on my fb page.

Carla replied:

Who are you to judge, Bob, who is worthy of help and who is not? You're not the one hearing their stories or learning of their experiences or having to figure out some desperate individual who sorely needs it. You like veterans, so you try to parse them away from the "others" who exist largely in your mind and the minds of those who have so poisoned your outlook that you are persuaded most people receiving assistance are somehow unworthy of it, even though you know NOTHING of their own circumstances or of the circumstances under which they're receiving such aid. 

You're satisfied that you know enough because you've heard that there are people freeloading off the rest of us, and you trust what you've heard rather than question it, so that way you do not have to worry about the moral peril posed by advocating harsh measures toward those who for a variety of reasons CANNOT help themselves or who are helping themselves but not enough to keep them from utter destitution and therefore require more.  What we know is that out of that 47% identified by Mr. Romney some 60% are paying INTO the system through payroll deductions.  Large numbers of them are seniors, the disabled, disabled veterans, and children.  Pick which ones you think are the freeloaders.

If you REALLY want to do something about that culture of dependency Bob you should express your outrage that so many of those people ARE employed but earning so little that they qualify for aid. Why don't you direct your anger at their employers, starting with Walmart, for skating on the public's dime with its inadequate pay which is so low that full time workers there still qualify for food stamps?

Another reply:

Are you really saying that you think that nearly half of this country's population are "freeloaders"? Romney says that it's this percentage of the country that is not only stealing from the government and fellow citizens, but, coincidentally, is voting for his opponent.

I, sir, have worked since I was 16 years old. The only thing I have taken from this government is approximately $15k in college grants, and I would like to think the government has received that back in taxes. There were times when, in retrospect, I know my father and I would have qualified for government aid--- food stamps at the very least. We never applied for or received aid, but if we did, I don't think that would have made us freeloaders. I have worked hard for every goddamned penny that I have made, and for you and Mr. Romney to say that just because I have a difference of opinion with you, and that just because I am not voting for your candidate, that I am or ever have been a freeloader, is truly insulting and arrogant, and everything I dislike about the political party you apparently support. I have voted Republican many times in the 23 years since I became voting age, but I haven't since 2001. After this year, I don't think I ever will again. You disgust me. Good day sir.

And re the matter at hand, Senator Webb has supported veterans-- even ones such as yourself-- for as long as I can remember, and with more vigor and passion than anyone I know. You really should be ashamed of yourself. He is an honorable man making a true difference in people's lives. What are you doing to benefit society?

My comments:

Bob wrote:  "Today's military personnel have incredible opportunities to lean a trade, get an education, etc. I have hired many vets and will continue to do so. Deployed active duty military and civilians serving our nation abroad are exempt from paying taxes. That is the law. They are not part of Romney's 47%."

Bob, that's the whole point.  Romney painted 47% of the population with a broad brush.  He demeaned and disparaged people who don't pay taxes WITHOUT EXCEPTION no matter why they don't pay taxes.  He put active duty military who are exempt from paying taxes in the same big bowl with the people you consider lazy losers and "dependents".  He didn't say "Those 47% who don't pay taxes are lazy losers with no sense of personal responsibility-- except for the active military, disabled vets, retired vets, other retired seniors, kids in school who work part-time, low-income families with a kid or two, other low income people, perhaps with so many medical expenses that they don't have to pay federal income tax." If he said that, he would have had only a couple of percent of people, not 47%.  

Now, Bob, you know why active military people don't pay taxes.  You are quick to come to their defense, as you should, as should all of us.  You probably know why many disabled and retired vets don't pay federal income taxes, and I doubt that you would consider them "freeloaders".  If pushed, you would probably say that other senior citizens and disabled people, most of whom had worked for decades, people who who are living on social security and not much more (and therefore don't pay federal income taxes) are also not "freeloaders".

Maybe someone would explain to you that, among the millions who don't pay federal income taxes, are students working part-time.  Maybe someone would explain to you that, among the millions who don't pay federal income taxes, are the working poor and near poor, many of whom have children, and many of whom, as Carla mentioned, make so little that they qualify for many government programs and don't pay federal income taxes.

All of those people, active military, disabled vets, retired vets, low-income seniors, low-income disabled people, students working part-time, low-income workers and low-income families with children, were demeaned and dismissed by Mitt Romney.  He said that ALL of these people, all of the 47% who don't pay federal income taxes, are victims, are dependent, show no personal responsibility, and think they are "entitled".

 But somehow you still think that most of the 47% are "lazy losers", people who are part of "generations of dependency", and people who abuse the system.  You have no figures, no proof as to how many of the 47% are lazy losers.  Romney didn't either, but he let that red herring out to stink when he talked to those rich folks.  And somehow you believe that everybody who isn't active military and doesn't pay taxes is a lazy loser who abuses the system.  

Shame on you. 

  

Income Inequality IS a Big Issue!

Income inequality IS an Important Issue!

Updates:  GOP Congress Boosts the Wealthiest   

 “We discovered that income inequality increased during periods of Republican control of Congress and decreased when the Democratic Party was in control,” Kelly said.

Here's another good one... just published this past week.  See what kind of grade your Congresscritter got.  Thank them if it is a good one.  Income Inequality:  A Congressional Report Card.  You can probably guess which Congresspeople got the A's and the B's and which ones got the C's, D's, and F's. 

* From Paul Krugman's blog at the New York Times.  Credit below. 

I started paying attention to politics again a few years back, before the 2008 election and even before the 2008 meltdown.  I don't know when I started being aware of and concerned about increasing income inequality, but I remember the feeling of being stunned when I learned about the GINI factor and when I learned what the U.S. GINI factor was compared to those of other countries.  I did not believe that anything good could come with a GINI factor that was equivalent to that of many third world countries.   

Alec Baldwin wrote an interesting piece called "Can America Be Great Again?" published at Huffington Post.  My comments here are not specifically in response to his article, which contains some interesting ideas and information, but it is a reply to a comment about income inequality.

The person posted:

Perspective is what issues are about.

Name any one year out of the past 3,000 years that the subject of "equality" in earnings HASN'T been an issue! There has ALWAYS been a "1%," and ALWAYS will be.

To make it a political issue is to divide and conquer.....again, and again and again! THAT is what history shows.....a never-ending circle of the same issue.

Does anyone REALLY believe that by just voting for Obama, this will go away? Or Mitt? It is what it is, and it's not an issue that can ever be or will be resolved! Wait and see..............

My reply:

The inequality in this country now is as bad as it is in many third world countries. In a country this rich and this productive, NOBODY should be without a decent paying- decent paying- job commensurate with their skills and capacities. But paying people decently takes away money from the uber-rich at the top, and the uber-rich refuse to voluntarily part with their mountains of cash.  much like the sad people we see on Hoarders..  except that the riches of the Hoarders are mostly junk that take over their homes. 

 The basic point, which for some reason eludes you, is that, while there will always be a 1%, the percentage of income and assets amassed by the 1% is greater now than it has ever been.... and that is DESTRUCTIVE for this country.

The people guilty of "dividing and conquering" ARE the uber-rich who somehow think they are deserving of all of this loot ... NOT the people who are saying, "NO! This sucks and it is wrong." It does tend to be a never-ending circle of the same issue...

One of the things I learned as a young kid is that one of the reasons that this country was so great is that the extreme income inequality didn't exist here... We weren't stuck; we could move up, and moving up meant to a slightly larger house or perhaps a new luxury item-- It didn't mean six homes, each more lavish than the next, while your neighbors were moving into a trailer-- and "regular people" could live a comfortable life by working 40 hours a week in decent working conditions.  Those "regular folks" could provide for their families (usually on one salary), raise their kids in peace, send them to a decent school and retire in security and dignity. 

I certainly do NOT think income inequality will go away under Obama... The problem is much, much deeper.  However, if we didn't have constant Republican obstruction and constant Republican propaganda telling people that the biggest problem is "lazy people with their hands in your pockets" (vs. the sociopathic and greedy mega rich people who turn their heads to the suffering of people who aren't as rich as they are), we'd be on our way to a more equitable society.  The only hope for returning to that more egalitarian country that I grew up in is to elect more Democrats and toss the Republicans out of power.

Romney? We KNOW that we would just go farther and farther towards the income inequality that has been so destructive to us for the past 30 years.  We heard his opinion on the 47% and no amount of excuses will change those comments.  They were very, very clear.

Let's make this clear again:  No, Both Parties Are NOT the Same! 

* The graph is from the introduction to Paul Krugman's blog at the New York Times in 2007.  Krugman writes:  

In fact, let me start this blog off with a chart that’s central to how I think about the big picture, the underlying story of what’s really going on in this country. The chart shows the share of the richest 10 percent of the American population in total income – an indicator that closely tracks many other measures of economic inequality – over the past 90 years, as estimated by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. I’ve added labels indicating four key periods.