Friday, November 2, 2012

Mitt Romney


I did not write the following, I copied/pasted it from a comment on cnn.com... but I agree 100%


Obama has blurry vision.  Here is what he has really done for us in 4 years. 
23 million Americans without work
1 in 6 Americans in poverty
47 million Americans needing food stamps to survive
6.2 trillion dollars piled on our national debt
4 billion dollars a day borrowed from China
Cover ups in Fast and Furious and Benghazi
Bail out of Unions across the nation
Handing money out to Political Donors with "Green" companies
Gas prices double when he took over
$4,500 less take home pay for middle class Americans
Largest expansion of the federal government in history
Obamacare...costs more and is raiding money from Medicare to pay for it. 
African American Unemployment at 14%, Hispanic 12%, Women 12%
My opinion of President Obama is that he is probably a really fun to hang out with (Jay-Z and Beyonce, George Clooney, among others); he is probably a really great husband (Mrs. Obama is going to be on Entertainment tonight, which seems appropriate); he is probably a great dad (buy Sasha and Malia their pooch, I mean really, he bought his kids a pup!!!)... BUT

I think President Obama is a failure as a President.

At a rally in Tampa, I was asked how a single mom could think about voting for Mitt Romney.  To me, there is no choice.

Five years ago, my net worth was well over seven figures, despite paying $90,000/year in taxes to the federal government and another $8,000 or so in state.  Five years ago, I owned a home that I'd put 20% down on, paid each month a little extra in addition to my monthly mortgage, and had at the end of 2008, and mid 2009 - still had $350,000 in equity in the thing as appraised by a licensed appraiser during the new appraisal regulations (i.e. appraisers were going to be fined if they gave any falsified increase in worth to the home and faced jail as a potential if the appraisal were egregious.)  By the way, I bought the house in 2000.

Four years ago, President Obama was elected and he forcefully stated during his campaign that he'd stop rubber stamping of foreclosures.  We all know what happened to me (or you can dig through posts and figure it out yourself).

My foreclosure was rubber stamped and is now being litigated by the federal government.  BUT my house belongs to someone else now.  And there is no way the federal government, or the bank, is going to send me a check for $350,000.

Four years ago, I had hope that my executive job would come back, or something like it.

It never did.  Those jobs are gone because when big business can't afford to keep their full staffing because of the tax rate, the smaller companies soon follow suit.  And then, of course, we have the push from Wall Street that says what an earnings report should state, so the CEOs focus more on that (or lose their own jobs), and then they off-shore because why?

Oh yeah, China is cheaper (India actually, or the Philippines).

Four years ago, President Obama said he'd crack down on Wall Street greed and theft.

I was contacted by the SEC about the company where I was the VP of internal audit.  Unfortunately, when the amount was not the staggering $500,000,000 of say an Enron or WorldCom, the SEC was no longer interested because President Obama would not have made good press on a mealy $5,000,000 thievery.

No, see President Obama wanted good press and a company worth $800,000,000 stealing and lying about $5,000,000 is not going to get him the USA Today style press he wanted.

Four years ago, my life was different.  In 2010, I went through the 2nd darkest year of my life; 2nd only to the year my first son died of SIDS.  If I recall correctly, President Obama was in the White House then.  He pushed and focused for a solid year on Obamacare and failed to do anything else for Americans.  He went shore to shore of other continents apologizing for being an American and the war we started in Iraq (I agree with him there, we had no business in Iraq).  He also apologized for Afghanistan and yet, the intell the CIA and others gained from Afghanistan is what led him to be able to take out Osamathejackass.

Four years ago, I did not vote for him (or for McCain - I voted for Colin Powell as a write in).  But I did have hope.  Hope that was quickly extinguished when I saw he was going to run this country into the ground.

Four years ago, the US had $10,000,000,000,000 in debt.

Today, we are $16,000,000,000,000 in debt to China and to others.

Four years ago, our embassies were protected by the brave men and women of our armed forces.

Today, we mourn the loss of an unprotected embassy in Libya (and where else, I might ask).

Four years ago, the unemployment (those actually filing claims, which do not include those who do not, or cannot - like me), the rate was 8%.

Today, the rate is the same 8% but more women and more children are on welfare and food stamps.  (Personally, I do not obtain those though I do qualify.)

Four years ago... we were better off as a nation than we are today.  And people want to take another four years of the same?

I do not get that.


And last, Alabama and Mississippi are two of the poorest and MOST African American populated states in the country.  Take a look at the Huffington Post map, or CNN.com or any other political map:


Why is it that those two states are voting and leaning heavily toward Romney?

That should be all you have to know about what those folks' fear is.

Another four years of Obama.

6 comments:

Suzy Olson said...

Alabama and Mississipp are historically 2 of the most uneducated states, so I don't think that point added to your argument at all. The fact that they are heavily African American has nothing to do with it. Afterall, they were also 2 of the last states to quit slavery. . . even though they are heavily African American. And if you look at the electoral map, I do find it interesting that the most educated states in the country, (NY, CA, MN, and many others) almost always vote Democrat. Does this just prove that Democrats are generally smarter? Look at the red states? Some of the most impoverished and uneducated states in the country. (AL, MS, etc)

As far as your other points. I'm confused. You want less government, yet you blame the government for your own personal shortfalls. Do you not think you had anything to do with you losing your "7" figure job, and living a life that is below your means? Is it also Obama's fault that you didn't make it in Medical School?

Everyone has a right to vote for who they choose, and I look forward to voting for Obama at the next election. Romney claims to want small government, yet he wants to get involved in people's lives when it involves their reproductive lives, and whether or not gay people can marry. No thank you!

Obama has done was he was able to do in the past years. He has had a congress that is heavily Republican, and will always go against him just for the sake of it. I don't blame Obama for where my life is. And neither should you. We all have a personal responsibility for our own lives.

A Doc 2 Be said...

Thanks for reading and commenting. As you can see, I have no issue with people who don't agree with me.

A couple of points of clarification:

1) I never said anything about getting into, or rejected from, or failing out, or anything else about medical school

2) I never mentioned having a 7-figure job, I did not. I had a 7-figure net worth. Big difference.

3) I'm glad you are voting. Period. Too many people are apathetic today thinking their vote doesn't count.

4) I don't dislike your candidate of choice; I think he fails as a president.

Have a great day!

Lynda Halliger-Otvos said...

What happens when you compare what W was left by Clinton and then what he and Cheney and the Repubs did to our economy in the eight years they had control? Given a huge surplus, they illegally invaded two countries and spent our wealth as if they have a Project for a New American Century. Have you read their Project? Perhaps you should before you tout their ethical concerns for the rest of the population. They, and I mean the very rich, have no use for us or care whether we live, die or are never born.

A Doc 2 Be said...

Lynda, I have no doubt part of the blame goes to Bush, and Clinton before him (he looked elsewhere rather than going after Osama), and Bush before him...

There is no singular person or party that is to blame.

What has turned me so against Obama, is that he focused for two straight years on Obamacare while the country lapsed and faltered.

Ethics are another debate all to themselves. This country lacks them. We like to think we'd do the right thing when no one is looking but companies and people don't.

It is wrong to stand up for what's right because if one does, the individual finds themselves on the other side of it - harmed by being fired (and I'm not talking about me here), harmed by being ostracized as "not fitting in" and worse.

At this point, I really feel that Obama got a shit deal when he became president, but he knew the shit deal he was coming into and unequipped with business sense, or much of a foreign policy grasp, he ran and won... on promises that he'd deliver.

What did he really deliver?

Osama? That was based upon intell that the BUSH administration got by waterboarding. As much as we hate to admit that we do that in clandestine areas, if we did not, Osama would still be alive. Give Obama credit, he did pull the trigger so to speak; unlike Clinton.

Did he protect our Libyan ambassador and staff? No.

Much like what happened in Iran, our people were stationed in a country in the midst of upheaval and we left them. Alone. Unguarded.

And last, about the very rich.

I know a few. Billionaire, multi-gazillionaire, multi-millionaire... and they do care for those of us who are out of work.

I know. Because they call me to ask what they can do to help. If I were to ask for money, I have no doubt they would help. BUT I will never ask for handouts; I'd rather figure out how to make ends meet on my own than that.

BTW, you rock :)

Solitary Diner said...

AD2B - I won't even pretend to know enough about American politics to comment on the two parties' economic track records/policies, but I have been paying enough attention to the news to know where the presidential candidates stand on issues like a woman's right to choose and same sex marriage. Economic considerations aside, how can you vote for a man who would take away a woman's control over her own body and prevent people from choosing whom to marry?

A Doc 2 Be said...

SD,

Mitt won't touch abortion with a proverbial 10m pole. I also believe if there were stronger women politically that were not fruit cakes and nut jobs, we'd see those as potential candidates for his cabinet. If there were say, a Hilary Clinton, on the GOP side, he'd take her. Condi? I'm not sure about her; she is a Bushie and he is still not popular here.

The efforts of the Obama propaganda machine doing its job. People believe without research that Mitt is anti-women, or at best a misogynistic pig. I don't believe he's either of those things.

What Mitt has stated again and again, is that the individual states + DC should decide what is in the best interest of the women of those particular states and that the Federal government should stay out of it.

I cannot disagree with that. How can someone who grew up in MA or IL, lived in UT or IL, ran MA and represented IL, decide what is best for a Minnesotan or a Floridian?

He can't.

However, I understand where things like "wipe out R v. W" comments come from.

See, the asinine thing with American politics is that you have some far right wingers/nut jobs saying they won't support in an ENDORSEMENT campaign anyone who doesn't say they are against abortion. So, in order to win the right wingers and get the nomination, a candidate has to walk a very fine line... which Mitt did... and Bush did... and Bush before him... as well as Clinton taking on Bush 1, Carter taking on Ford, Reagan taking on Mondale, Nixon taking on Johnson/McGovern...

Unfortunately, those old sound bites get replayed as if they occurred yesterday, or last week, or even last month.

The 47% that gets overplayed?

I get it. It is like the 80/20 rule. You solve 100% of the issues in a critical patient, so you solve 80% and hope for the other 20%. Maybe the odds are better in a patient but what Mitt was trying to say was that

47% of the population (white, black, rich, poor, etc etc etc) are going to vote for Obama no matter what Mitt does to change their mind. What Mitt said is that he is going to have to focus on the other 53% to win the election.

If Obama's blathering were correct, then I should be a staunch supporter of his. I'm white, poor, single mom.

But I don't, didn't, and won't.

I voted Mitt.