As per a conversation the other day I was told that I should be a Democrat and want Obama to win! Seriously? I think not. I was given this advice as I am not the social norm of a republican. Why? Could it be that I am not making six figures plus a year? Could it be that I am a woman? Whatever the case may be I will never become a Democrat. I am not about to convert to the Democratic party due to my financial situation or due to my being a woman. I may not be a millionaire, but I don't believe taxing the wealthy up the ying yang is fair or helps our economy. The wealthy help our economy by spending and donating money where they want it to go, not where our Government wants its to go. Why should anyone help fund some poor person that continues to have children and work the government's system? Let's face it there's a reason poor people have an army of kids,they're working the system.Why should anyone pay for some homeless druggie to have health care? Personally I think all people on welfare and governmental aid programs should be drug tested prior to receiving their government checks.Perhaps I sound callous, but I do not believe in handouts. Hand outs do not motivate anyone to excel and that is what this country used to be about. I believe we work hard and those that do well will give back. The rich may give back in their lavish purchases of Chanel, Prada,and so forth but the rich are creating jobs. If the rich shop, the stores benefit by this in needing more sales professionals. If the rich vacation, and dine out, again more employees are needed. If the rich donate to various organizations, we are that much closer to finding cures for horrible diseases. It was reported as to how little Mitt Romney paid in taxes, but it was not highly publicized that Mitt Romney made over 4 million dollars in donations. Bottom line the rich replenish our economy if able to keep more of their hard earned money. I may not be rich, but I do know what works and Obama's way has hurt our country's economy more than any other President. Rich or poor I will not convert to being a Democrat and I am proud to be a republican.
As for my being a woman, I am against abortion. If women in third world countries have brains enough to use protection our country can too as well. Bottom line, abortion is murder. I go back to my Great Grand Mother's line where if a woman can take the time to "do it" she can dam well take the time to have it! Granted there are exceptions. If a woman's health or if the baby's health are in danger I do feel terminating the pregnancy is necessary. In the case of a rape I also feel an abortion is necessary, but an abortion should not be another form of birth control! It's sick, it's archaic and it's downright wrong. It is said that when a nation's morals are gone the nation will fall shortly after. In history every great nation that fell, their morals had fallen and God was forgotten.
Convert to a Democrat? Never. In my experience Dems are, hardheaded liberals with little to no values. Have I friends that are Dems? Of course, but they are in my opinion just plain pigheaded and obnoxious. Anyone with any sense should see that capitalism works, and socialism does not. Capitalism is what made our country a great nation. That and a strong military. Already, our country is being attacked. Why? Simple. Our enemies know Obama won't do anything. Mark my words if Obama is re-elected this country is going to hell in a basket. Unemployment will continue to rise, more attacks on Americans will ensue and our deficit will continue to sky rocket. By 2016 this country may well not be recognizable. Already it has been reported that the pool in front of The Washington Monument is a green mess. Already parks around America are becoming overgrown. Already cities are going bankrupt and without funds to keep up roads , governmental buildings and such. What more do people need to say we need real "change"? We need a "change" alright, we need a "change" in who we have running our country. We need a man that knows economics, knows the importance of a strong military and knows the need in strong values as well. What America needs is Mitt Romney.
(c) Sean Bianca 2012
2 comments:
Overall, it was a debate packed with facts, a wonk's delight. From the very first remarks, with President Obama saying 5 million jobs have been created in the private sector over the last 30 months, the debate was very number focused. So there were some things to check. And because Romney made more factual assertions, he's getting dinged more — at least in the early hours after the debate — by the fact checkers.
Here is a sample of what's being reported about the truthiness of what Obama and Romney had to say Wednesday night on stage at the University of Denver:
— One of the biggest disputes was over tax cuts. Obama argued that Romney's plan to stimulate the economy includes a tax cut totaling $5 trillion that, Obama said, isn't possible because the Republican nominee is also promising to spend money in other places.
Romney flatly disputed that number. "First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut," he said.
Who's right? The Washington Post's Fact Checker says the facts on this one are on Obama's side. The New York Times notes that Romney "has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion."
FactCheck.org has weighed in too, tweeting during the debate that "Romney says he will pay for $5T tax cut without raising deficit or raising taxes on middle class. Experts say that's not possible."
PolitiFact has given a "mostly true" rating to the charge that "Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."
— Has the president put in place a plan that would cut Medicare benefits by $716 billion? Romney says yes. The president says no. According to PolitiFact, Romney's charge is "half true."
"That amount — $716 billion — refers to Obamacare's reductions in Medicare spending over 10 years, primarily paid to insurers and hospitals," says PolitiFact. So there is a basis for the number. But, it adds, "the statement gives the impression that the law takes money already allocated to Medicare away from current recipients," which is why it gets only a "half true" rating.
The New York Times writes that Obama "did not cut benefits by $716 billion over 10 years as part of his 2010 health care law; rather, he reduced Medicare reimbursements to health care providers, chiefly insurance companies and drug manufacturers. And the law gave Medicare recipients more generous benefits for prescription drugs and free preventive care like mammograms."
Still, as NPR's Julie Rovner has reported, "some of the money does indeed reduce future Medical spending, and the fact is, you can't reduce health care spending and preserve Medicare for 78 million baby boomers without slowing its growth."
— In listing his objections to the Affordable Care Act, Romney said it "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea."
But the Times and National Journal have reported that the board in question wouldn't make treatment decisions, a point Obama made during the debate. National Journal called Romney's characterization of what this board would do "one of the biggest whoppers of the night." PolitiFact gave Romney's claim a "mostly false" rating.
Under the law, the board's job would be to keep Medicare spending within a particular target (not a dollar figure, but as a factor of GDP) but the board is prohibited from choosing the benefits to be restricted to achieve savings, so it cannot make treatment decisions.
FactCheck.org, which has likened the charge about this panel to the earlier claim from Republicans that Obama would create "death panels," writes that "the board, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, cannot, by law, 'ration' care or determine which treatments Medicare covers. In fact, the IPAB is limited in what it can do to curb the growth of Medicare spending."
— On cutting the federal deficit, PolitiFact writes, "Romney claimed that Obama had said he would 'cut the deficit in half.' That's the case. ... Obama said he put forward 'a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan.' That's true if you combine the 10-year impact of his budget with the 10-year impact of cuts already approved. (For that reason, we've previously found his claim that his budget plan would 'cut our deficits by $4 trillion' Half True.)"
— As for Obama's claim that under his watch the economy has created 5 million jobs in the past 30 months, NPR's John Ydstie says that's true. But it also ignores an inconvenient truth (for the president), that about the same number of jobs were lost during Obama's first year in office.
—
Post a Comment