If Romney Were President

If Mitt Romney were president today, 60 million Americans facing $20 billion in "Sandy" damage would be SOL -- or hoping that the state they live in could somehow help them out. That's because disaster relief would no longer be a function or responsibility of the federal government and FEMA would no longer exist, thanks to Romney.

The state of New Jersey, for instance, which brought to its knees by that storm, being solely responsible for preparation, rescue and recovery from the horrendous damage "Sandy" wreaked is about as ludicrous as expecting a patient that has open-heart surgery to sew him/herself up and assume her/his own care, including vital-sign monitoring and IV drips.

"Sandy" made NJ Gov. Chris Christie a true believer of the need for FEMA and other federal assistance. This is what he said:

  Christie told news outlets that the president’s response had been “outstanding,” said that coordinating with the administration had been “wonderful,” and remarked that “the president has been all over this and he deserves great credit.” He even told Fox News the president had done a “great job for New Jersey” while staying above the fray about politics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/in-superstorm-sandy-new-jersey-governor-chris-christie-praises-president-obamas-crisis-leadership/2012/10/30/89769e32-22b5-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html

  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie thanked President Obama for his help in the face of Hurricane Sandy, and praised the president’s leadership Tuesday. http://www.examiner.com/article/governor-christie-praises-obama-s-leadership-aftermath-of-sandy

That's just one of the reasons I'm voting for President Obama. Others include:

• Middle-income Americans' mortgage, education, child and other vital tax deductions will NOT be at risk, like they are likely to be under Romney.
• Pay parity is more realistic.  The Lilly Ledbetter Act, which enables women to know if their male counterparts -- same work, same experience, same training -- are being paid more than they are, and to sue their employers if they are, is a start. Obama will sign into law the Fair Pay Act, which will ensure that women are paid 100% of what their male counterparts earn, not just 73-77%, which is now the case.
• Women's access to healthcare, preventative care and screening for breast and cervical, including reproductive information and pregnancy prevention methods will not be eliminated as they are likely to be under Romney.
• Insurance-company ban on from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
• Stopped the country’s plunge off the economic cliff and ended the Great Recession created by GWBush and Republican Congress fiscal irresponsibility.
• Substantially cut taxes for working Americans -- twice.
• Private-sector job growth for the past 36 straight months.
• Robust and increasingly profitable U.S. auto industry and related businesses.
• Tough on terror and terrorists.
• Strong leadership regarding natural and national disasters.
• Ended Iraq war, ending Afghanistan war, strong leadership in not starting any new wars.
• Protecting consumers from predatory financial industry tactics by creating the Consumers Financial Protection Bureau.
•  Will keep intact the Affordable Care Act (ACA)/Obamacare with provisions that:   

Ø     Provides healthcare coverage for millions who previously were uninsured, including people under 26 years old who can stay on their parents’ insurance plans.

Ø Reduces a major reason for skyrocketing rise in healthcare costs – insurance premiums – by requiring 80 percent of premiums to be spent on actual care.

Ø     Ends insurance-premium discrimination against women.

Ø    Extends viability of Medicare and benefiting those who use the program in at least two ways:

      Covering preventative procedures such as annual physical exams, which Medicare previously didn’t cover, and other screening procedures, all of which is much less costly than trying to treat chronic and acute diseases after they have become advanced and create collateral damage

      Closing the prescription drug “donut hole” and allowing price comparison

      All reforms paid for by reductions in costs, not by increased fees to users or costs to taxpayers

·         Being able to achieve major accomplishments despite a Congress that will do nothing that he proposes – even measures that were, in fact, initially Republican proposals, such as the ACA insurance mandate, which was part of Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract with America" – that would benefit the country for fear that it might help his re-election.

Here’s proof:

Ø  Republicans have mounted the worst filibuster record in Senate history, blocking bills that would have increased employment and blocking key appointments, including judges, to the detriment of the justice system

Ø  The McConnell rule, which Mitch McConnell articulated two years ago as “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” That’s the Republicans’ #1 priority.

      Not create jobs

      Not reduce the unemployment rate

      Not improve the economy

      Not national defense

Ø  While defeating President Obama might be the Republicans’ political objective, making that their number one governing objective has not been and still isn’t in the best interest of the country or the People

It is beyond me why anyone, and certainly why any woman, would ever vote for a Republican and not vote for President Obama.

Americans ARE Better Off, Thanks to Obama

The chart below showing Pres. Obama to be anything but the big spender his critics would have voters believe him to be sparked quite a discussion on Facebook, including this comment from "Ronnie":

"prices of gas are higher food bills higher utilities higher and pay is less tell me how we are better"

I don't know about "Ronnie" but I sure had no problem coming up with several million Americans who are definitely better off thanks to Obama, such as:

Those who were hired to fill the nearly 5 million private sector jobs created in the past 3-1/2 years, the 43 million previously uninsured people who now have healthcare coverage, most middle-income Americans who realized significant tax savings (the tax policy center calculates an average of $3,600 per typical family -- my household's was more than $5,000), the millions of Americans who will no longer be barred from healthcare coverage because of 'pre-existing conditions' that had become as ridiculous as having been pregnant at sometime in their lives, women who now have the right to sue employers for pay discrimination, women who no longer pay higher insurance premiums than men, millions of Americans who invest in a stock market that has more than doubled since Obama took office, thousands of auto industry workers and thousands more in related industries who didn't lose their jobs because of Obama-approved loans to GM and Chrysler most of which have been paid back -- with interest -- and many more Americans who have and still are benefiting from Obama's policies. 

Speaking of gas prices, remember $4 and higher per gallon during GWBush's term? And he was one president who really could do something about gas prices, thanks to his in w/the Saudi royal family, but even he couldn't keep prices from going through the roof.

Some who are certainly better off than Mitt Romney would have them believe are Jeep workers whose jobs are NOT being sent to China -- contrary to what Romney told a crowd in Ohio, where a lot of Jeep employers live and work, gun owners whose rights have been EXPANDED under Obama (unlike what Romney did as governor of Massachusetts when he signed the most restrictive gun law in that state).

Some who might not be better off are former Delphi employees whose jobs Romney's Bain Capital shipped overseas, Sensata Technologies workers in Freeport, Ill., whose jobs Bain is shipping to China next week, and the millions of former manufacturing workers whose jobs have been shipped to other countries by corporations seeking ever-higher profits, some now making record high profits, yet still get federal subsidies that the GOP-controlled Congress refuse to end.

Nothing Honorable About Detroit News Endorsement

A Facebook Friend posted this. It is so worth reading and sharing.

If Undecided 2012
I WAS DISGUSTED TO SEE THAT THE DETROIT NEWS ENDORSED MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT. THIS IS THE COMMENT I SENT 
TO THEIR EDITOR:

"I once was proud to be a Detroit News paper-boy back in 1960-1965, when I was 13-18 years-old. Back then I respected the newspaper that I sold. But as we both have aged I hav 

e seen The Detroit News become increasingly conservative -- finally reaching the point where I no longer respect my former employer.

In the second paragraph of your editorial endorsing Mitt Romney you describe the current election as a decision between two "honorable" men. In my opinion your choice of words is either grossly incorrect, or intentionally misleading. You also say that you "find Romney to be ... not bound by rigid ideology." I find that to be a creative but tortured euphemism for describing a man who displays only one guiding principle: "The end justifies the means." Mitt Romney grasps onto whatever beliefs he feels are necessary in order to curry the approval of whomever he is speaking to at the moment, and then blithely changes them at his next campaign stop to fit his new audience.

Lastly, I see nothing honorable about a man who cavalierly buys often-profitable companies, plunders them for personal gain, hides his untaxed profits overseas, sends American companies to places like China were he can pay them 99 cents an hour -- coldly casting the company's former American workers onto the scrap-heap. If you support such a person for President, then you -- like Mitt Romney -- appear to possess no sense of fairness or decency, and no honest concern for the well-being of this country and its workers. Shame." --Brian Enright

For All Women, No Dilemma

An undecided female voter called Tom Ashbrook's "On Point" program today. Her dilemma: She thinks voting for Romney might be better for the economy and help her get a job. But she wants to vote for Pres. Obama b/c he will protect her personal and civil rights. 

The obvious, but unsaid, answer is that she should vote for Obama. With Obama, her personal and civil rights are protected and economic progress is on track to continue. 

Romney's multiple and fluid economic plans might or might not succeed. But the continued Republican assaults on women's rights and the guaranteed appointment of at least one ultra-conservative Supreme Court justice would doom Roe v. Wade and possibly access to any form of contraceptives. 

As some people have noted, this is a family issue, not just a women's issue, that will affect not only the "On Point" caller, but all families in America for generations to come. 

For this undecided voter or ANY woman, what is the dilemma?

More on Obama Not a Big Spender

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Check out the chart –

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/ 

Isn't freeloading on others by looking for ways to not have to pay taxes, even though you benefit greatly from government-provided services, infrastructure and laws unAmerican and unpatriotic? Why should we have to carry this man's freight, not to mention want him to be president of this country that he skates on?

Romney Admits Cayman Islands Accounts Used To 'Not Be Subject To Taxes'

www.huffingtonpost.com

WASHINGTON -- Some tax experts are alarmed by Mitt Romney's apparent 

Lindsey Graham says (legal) tax avoidance is the "American way."

 

Obama Is Far From Being A Big Spender

So much bogus math and false assertions is being thrown around in this presidential campaign.

One is that Pres. Obama is a big spender. One friend is so sure of that, he provided some of the "proof" being used by Obama opponents. It wasn't even worth a response. A huge factor Obama critics either overlook or want everyone else to overlook that can make Obama appear to have blown up the deficit is how expenditures for GWBush's two wars are counted.

Bush did not include them in his budgets, but put them under "emergency spending." For two terms! When Obama took office, he said it was dishonest to keep war spending off the budget, so he included it in his budgets. Thus, it looks like he's increased spending by a trillion or more when he's actually reduced the budget -- by $200 billion.

Below is a chart that shows how the budget has shrunk since Obama took office, along with some commentary that was posted with it:

"Obama has something to brag about -- very few presidents of the last generation can say they managed to shrink the deficit by over $200 billion, even during difficult economic times." Only two presidents have reduced the deficit this much -- Clinton and Obama. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/12/14399005-us-budget-deficit-shrinks-by-over-200-billion-reaches-4-year-low?lite

U.S. budget deficit shrinks by over $200 billion, reaches 4-year low

maddowblog.msnbc.com

As the job market improves and unemployment falls, one of the central attacks from Romney/Ryan against President Obama has to do with the budget deficit.

How Has Competition in Healthcare Worked Out?

The Milwaukee newspaper, no doubt, gets way more letters from readers than it can possibly publish. That probably explains why the letter below, which I sent on Monday, Oct. 8, wasn't published. Surely, it couldn't be because I criticized the newspaper. Here, for anyone who follows this blog is what I wrote. 

The Journal Sentinel's top Page 1 news story today is that Mitt Romney "supports competition in healthcare". Given that the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed and access to healthcare has shrunk for a vast number of Americans ever since Richard Nixon opened the door to for-profit HMOs and hospitals back in 1971, I have to ask, "How did that 'competition in healthcare' thingy work out for us?" Medicare is the only healthcare program/plan that isn't a disaster. The people who have benefited financially are healthcare industry, including insurance, CEOs and shareholders. The only competition in healthcare for insurance companies is to get more of our money, not in providing better or more affordable coverage. Obamacare is showing real benefits, financially and otherwise, for many Americans, including those on Medicare for whom much less costly annual physicals are now covered before potentially catastrophic illnesses take hold that need highly expensive--and often--ineffective or inadequate treatment. The vast majority of Americans can't afford Romney's idea of returning to the good old days of "competition in healthcare" that has left so many in this country in financial ruin and some even dead.

Will Mitt Get Them Into The Sack?

My blood boils knowing that a man who is rich enough several times over—for life!—wants to be president of a country he doesn’t care enough about or have enough faith in to invest his vast fortune in, but uses Caribbean tax havens and Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying taxes the way those of us he wants to govern have to.

Equally maddening is that a large number of people in my economic group who will be hurt by his economic strategy and social ideology—if anyone can figure out what that really is—will vote for him. Talk about whacking off your nose because you have a zit on your chin!

Where is the logic?

Women, for instance.

Do women who vote for Republicans have such low self esteem that they think they deserve to be paid 25 percent less than men with the same education and experience for the same work?

Do women who say they’re voting for Mitt Romney and other Republicans think they should have to pay higher insurance premiums than men with the same risk factors—or do they really believe that being female is a risk factor?

Do they really believe it’s moral, ethical or just for insurance companies to cover Viagra, but not contraceptives?

Do they think the government shouldn’t help ensure the only access many uninsured females have to preventative healthcare such as Pap tests and mammograms?

Do they really want something akin to a “Personhood” amendment to become the law of the land, which will end in vitro fertilization, outlaw some contraceptive methods including The Pill, and ban pregnancy termination at the very earliest stage?

Do they think “small government” means a government that intrudes on Americans’ personal lives by dictating who they can marry, what medical procedures—needed or not—they must undergo, what pregnancy-prevention methods they can legally obtain and use?

Do they relish the idea of being called liars if they are impregnated from being raped?

How about immigrants?

Do immigrants who vote for Republicans really believe in the wholesale deportation of undocumented residents, including those who were babies or young children when their parents brought them to this country and are living as Americans in every way?

And people of color.

Do African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans or Middle Eastern Americans who plan to vote for Republicans think it’s OK to be racially or ethnically profiled as criminal suspects and traffic violators, or screened out as job or college applicants and prospective home buyers, or barred as customers in commercial establishments? Republicans want to strike down laws that prevent such profiling and Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices routinely rule that profiling—by any other name—is not unconstitutional.

And homeowners.

Do people who are eligible for a home-mortgage tax deduction really think it’s worth the risk of losing that and other family-related deductions, which Mitt Romney refuses to take off the table for eliminating, should he be elected? And do they think losing those relatively very modest deductions is fair when Romney and his fellow Republicans will not eliminate the very lucrative federal subsidies to highly profitable companies and corporations, especially when it’s been demonstrated that those subsidies do nothing to create jobs or improve the U.S. economy?

And even gun owners.

Do people really believe President Obama has or will restrict gun rights--or even “take their guns away” as is falsely warned in special-interest, including NRA, political ads? Contrary to such misinformation, President Obama has expanded gun rights, making it legal to carry guns in national parks and on the federally funded passenger train line, AMTRAK.

In stark contrast, as governor of Massachusetts eight years ago, Mitt Romney signed into law what was hailed as “one of the toughest assault weapons laws in the country.” But to gain gun-owners’ support, early in his presidential bid he tried to tout his pro-gun cred to a “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire crowd by saying, “I've been a hunter pretty much all my life.” 

He also said he owned a gun and claimed to be a “lifetime member of the NRA.”

All three claims had to be taken back. His claim of being a hunter all of his life was a flat out lie. His scrambling staff said after his New Hampshire claim that he had actually been hunting only twice in his life. The first time was at age 15 when he went gunning for rabbits. The second was nearly 50 years later when he was after quail in Georgia. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/25/romney-s-flip-flops-on-gun-control-over-the-years.html.

His claim of owning a gun was also bogus. He told reporters two days later that he didn’t own a gun but that one of his sons did.

Rather than being flat out false, his claim of being a lifetime NRA member was just misleading. Rather than being an NRA all his life, he joined in 2006 and paid for a Lifetime Membership. He admitted it was a calculated move.

“I’m after the NRA’s endorsement,” he told an audience in Derry, N.H. “I’m not sure they’ll give it to me. I hope they will. I also joined because if I’m going to ask for their endorsement, they’re going to ask for mine.”

But will he give it? His positions on all manner of issues have shifted and changed and flip-flopped so much over the past decade, he's like the guy who will say or do anything to a gal to jump in the sack with him.

To me, Mitt Romney is nothing more than an amoral opportunist whose lifelong quest has been to enrich and aggrandize himself to ever-higher pedestals and who is in complete denial of the proverbial eye or the needle.

Jesus's Voting Guide

Christians need to read the New Testament scriptures and vote according to what Jesus said about the social issue that upset the people in this piece, which is homosexuality -- which is nothing.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/08/160809074/social-issues-hold-sway-over-ohios-black-voters

Jesus did not address homosexuality. If homosexuality were a major concern for Jesus, he would have spoken out about it.

People who claim to be Christians need consider how much more closely the Democratic platform and policies than the Republicans' reflect what was important to Jesus, particularly regarding how to treat their fellow human beings. Relevant verses:

Matthew 25:35-40
Mark 10:21-22
Mark 12:41-44
Luke 6:20-21
Luke 11:39-42
Luke 12:16-21
Luke 14:12-14
Luke 16:19-25

(Passages below)

I find nothing Jesus-based in the Republican agenda/ideology.

The true Christian duty is to vote for President Obama and the Democratic agenda.

Matthew 25:35-40 – ³⁵“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” ³⁷Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? ³⁸And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? ³⁹And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ ⁴⁰And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”

               

Mark 10:21-25 – ²¹And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” ²²Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. ²³And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” ²⁴And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, ⁱ“Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! ²⁵It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

Mark 12:13-17 – ¹³And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. ¹⁴And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” ¹⁵But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” ¹⁶And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” ¹⁷Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.

Mark 12:41-44 – ⁴¹Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. ⁴²But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. ⁴³Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. ⁴⁴ They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Luke 6:20-26 – ²⁰And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. ²¹Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. ²²Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. ²³Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets. ²⁴But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full. ²⁵Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. ²⁶Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.

Luke 11:39-42 – ³⁹And the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. ⁴⁰You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? ⁴¹But give as alms those things that are within, and behold, everything is clean for you. ⁴²“But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”

Luke 12:16-21 – ¹⁶And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced plentifully, ¹⁷and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ ¹⁸And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. ¹⁹And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.”’ ²⁰But God said to him,  ‘Fool!  This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ ²¹So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.”

Luke 14:12-14 – ¹²He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. ¹³But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, ¹⁴and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”

Luke 16:14-25 – ¹⁴The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. ¹⁵ And he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. ¹⁶The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it. ¹⁷But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void. ¹⁸Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. ¹⁹There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. ²⁰And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, ²¹who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. ²²The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, ²³and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. ²⁴And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ ²⁵But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.”