Hearing one of my favorite sayings, ‘…no dog in the hunt…’ I was intrigued and continued to watch one of the fastest, informative, 7-minute videos I’ve ever seen. And in that 7 minutes, reason after valid reason is given for why the election this November will be a landslide, predicting that Mitt Romney will be the ‘slider:’ not the slidee.
However, Mitt Romney will have his work cut out for him. Government spending MUST be cut and that won’t be fun. No one person ‘got us here,’ and no one person can undo the past, but we need to start making decisions that will head us in the right direction,
Our country, our economy is near the abyss and we can’t continue this roll downhill, for soon it will become a free-fall. No, “WHAT COLOR IS YOUR PARACHUTE!”
This is a guest post from The HubPages by guest author Bill , Henderson, reprinted with permission of the author
“Barack, Barack, Barack. Where shall I start?”
I guess I’ll start with what you said
“Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
First, no one said that we don’t need roads and bridges or infrastructure, so that’s an obvious straw man argument (and you are a genius at building straw men!). But your argument is also that we cannot make it without government (and you, of course), while the exact opposite is the truth. Government can’t do one damn thing without the taxpayers who provide the money via taxes, or the businesses government then hires to build that infrastructure.
Government earns no money, and couldn’t build a bird house.
Your surrogates are quickly rushing to tell us what you really meant, but why is it that the smartest man in the world so often has to have his people ‘splain what he really meant? I submit that you meant exactly what you said: Americans cannot thrive without a massive government guiding and supporting them every step of the way, and with a man like you at the helm telling us what we must do.
Well, I have news for you sir. I like to write about early America, because I’m in awe of the sort of brave men and women who left the comfort and relative safety of Europe and sailed to the new land where government did not exist. What an astoundingly courageous thing to do! There was no such thing as ‘infrastructure’, but they came anyway, and they persevered.
I’m also in awe of the brave men and women who later left the relative comfort and safety of the original states, and ventured into the unknown western frontier, where they were on their own, and government was nowhere to be found. There were no roads and bridges, and ‘infrastructure’ was a word that would not be coined for centuries. Yet with little or no help from government, they carved out the ranches, farms, and industries that made America an industrial giant. They expanded America, and government went along for the ride.
I would also point out to you, sir, that those times when government was out of the way were also some of the most productive times in our history! How could that be, when you claim that only government can pave the way? That is obviously untrue.
The role of government was spelled out by our Founding Fathers:
“We the people, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I’m surprised that a Constitutional scholar, and lawyer like you would be so woefully ignorant of the Constitutional role of government
Government is supposed to provide a taxpayer supported environment that allows “We the people” to prosper. Government was to be limited in power and scope, so that it was the servant of the people and not their master. Government was never intended to have the dominating role in our lives that you envision. That’s why the Constitution was written in ink and on stiff parchment, rather than on rubber than can be stretched to mean anything.
The sneering tone, delivery, snark, and blatant condescension of your recent remarks directed to and about business creators demonstrated your inherent hostility and derision toward the entrepreneurs and innovators which create new businesses and provide the backbone of American prosperity. You should be ashamed. What sort of president are you, when you constantly pit one American against another? You are the most divisive president in this old man’s memory.
You need to reexamine your motives, sir, apologize to America’s small business owners, and then run on your record. I assume you already know that the economy is in a shambles, unemployment is unacceptably high, and America has lost her triple ‘A’ credit rating. Why not run on that, instead of attacking America’s backbone?
I remember when we used to scold the lazy, good-for-nothings in America, the ones who refused to work and make something of themselves, whether adult or child. Today, we have a president who scolds the hard-working, successful business creators! How did we ever come to this?”
This ad, released by the Obama campaign attempts to paint Mitt Romney as having destroyed the two men’s lives and the lives of their families, Mitt Romney not caring about the ‘fallout.’ Mitt Romney was the CEO of Bain capital, the private equity firm hired to trim the excess of a business and restructure if necessary. These men were caught in the restructure and lost their jobs. So, therefore the person in charge of Bain Capital is at fault for their misfortune.
There is one large inaccuracy in the ad: it misrepresents historical fact. Mitt Romney was NOT working for Bain Capital when these 2 gentlemen lost their jobs: he had left Bain Capital 2 years prior, to quite successfully bring about the Salt Lake City, Utah Olympics. The ad cast him as ‘guilty’ by association.
In business, there are companies that make money and thrive. Unfortunately, there are companies that don’t do well and workers lose their jobs. That is not the ‘fault’ of private equity firms which are hired to ‘turn a failing company around, if possible. That is their job. That is what they do. That is the free market. The alternative is that we ALL have equal paying jobs, run by the government, with no room for competition.
What a coincidence that I stumbled upon this video at the same time I thought that President Obama needed a ‘TALKING TO! Notice his sheepish demeanor when he receives that ‘talking to’ from Jack Webb and Harry Morgan. I don’t know your opinions on ‘Obamacare,’ but I’ll share mine.
I’m don’t agree with Obamacare; but not because I want to see the uninsured mother of 5 remain uninsured and suffer; an aspersion cast by many liberals. Au contraire, I’d like to see each legal American have access to good health care benefits. I just think we can do better than a 906 page bill which includes an individual mandate, requiring us to buy health insurance-or face a penalty/fine/tax; my solution will find its way to another post.
Many employers provide health insurance to employees as a benefit of their employment. Not knowing the outcome of Supreme Court challenges, employers don’t know if they’ll be charged with providing health insurance or face a penalty/tax/fine. If they are faced with that decision, it is likely that they will think twice before offering health insurance to workers; or they’ll pass the cost of that insurance on to the worker.
If employees don’t receive health insurance from their employer, they’ll be forced to buy it on the free market. This simply isn’t an option for many and they’ll face a penalty/tax/fine or take advantage of the public option.
If employers continue to provide health insurance for their workers, the cost will be passed on to the worker in the form of lower salaries, salary freezes, cut-backs, lay-offs or not hiring at all. This is not the time to keep businesses from hiring; we already have 17,000,000 unemployed workers.
We were told that premiums would not increase. However, does it make sense that we can insure more people, deliver more services to more people; without raising premiums (a promise that President Obama made)?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the April 2012 unemployment rate was 8.1%. Finally, and at long last, the United States employment and economy are headed in the right direction? If you said WRONG you’d be right.
The figure of 8.1% is misleading for several reasons. It doesn’t count the millions of unemployed who have run out of unemployment benefits. It doesn’t count those who seek full-time employment but have to settle for a part-time job. Nor does it take into consideration the millions of frustrated unemployed workers who have given up their search, Counted in the official figures or not, these people are just as under or unemployed.
if you added them back into the calculations of the unemployed, the rate would be well above 14%.
So, should President Obama be re-elected. Maybe he shouldn’t have said, “If unemployment isn’t below 8% by the time of the elections, I think we’re looking at a one-time proposition.” We all say things we don’t mean, but: