It’s official. Americans have now leaped over the fiscal cliff and our financial well-being rests in the hands of our elected leaders.
That prospect alone scares the hell out of me.
This new deal means that individuals earning more than $400,000 per year will face tax increases while everyone below that threshold will remain the same. Other features include an extension of unemployment insurance for one year, an increase on inherited estate taxes and renewed tax credits for tuition, child care and research and development, to name a few.
It’s about time these people learned the word compromise, don’t you think?
Of course, there is also plenty of bad news. The deal now has to pass in the GOP-controlled House. And despite strong bipartisan support in the Senate, the sailing won’t be nearly as smooth in the House.
“The purpose of this meeting is to review what the Senate has passed, discuss potential options, and seek member feedback,” a GOP leadership aide said recently. “No decision on the path forward is expected before another member meeting that will be held later.”
The catch is that for this deal to pass, it must do so before Thursday at noon when a new Congress will be sworn in. If things aren’t finalized before the deadline, then both chambers would have to start all over again.
This may appeal to politicians, who seem to enjoy dragging things out indefinitely and wasting everyone’s time and money, but the American people will not be happy if this occurs. And I have no apprehension in speaking on their behalf, either.
Even more bad news is that even if this deal passes and is signed into law, there are a number of key issues that still won’t be resolved for months. The so-called “debt ceiling” isn’t even mentioned in the package. And the sequester, automatic cuts in federal spending that should have taken effect tomorrow, will be delayed for two months.
In other words, Congress will have even more work to do later and people on opposite sides of the aisle will again be expected to find some kind of common ground.
So that’s where we stand at the moment, my fellow Americans: diving off the fiscal cliff while our leaders scramble to construct a safety net below us. Let’s hope that their combination of compromise and procrastination works or 2013 could be a really rough year.
It looks like Mitt Romney has recovered from his presidential whooping and could now use a refresher course in good sportsmanship.
On Wednesday, the once relevant Republican claimed that Obama beat him because of the “gifts” he gave to young people, African-Americans and Hispanics prior to the election. And go figure, but he first made these comments on a call with some of his top donors.
Sounds just like the guy who called 47% of Americans freeloaders in a speech to wealthy donors, doesn’t it?
Romney referred to a number of Obama policies that gave his base “extraordinary financial gifts from the government.”
For young people, Obama forgave college loan interest and allowed anyone younger than 26 to remain on their parents’ insurance. This of course made contraception more available to young women.
For African-Americans and Hispanics, the President offered free health care for the foreseeable future. The children of illegal Latinos also received amnesty.
In Romney’s opinion, these were all kickbacks strategically placed to garner more support in November. This is highly unlikely, of course, but Obama did walk away with 60% of the youth vote, 93% of the African-American vote and 71% of the Hispanic vote. And even if these things were planned, the fact of the matter is that they were the right things to do.
Mitt just wishes that he had been able to do them.
Of course, there are plenty of Republicans who seem to be over Romney now that he lost by such a substantial margin in both the electoral and popular vote. And given his recent comments, a number of his own people seem to be turning against him.
“I absolutely reject that notion,” said Louisiana‘s Republican Governor Bobby Jindal during a recent conference in Las Vegas. “That’s absolutely wrong [and] I don’t think [it] represents where we are as a party and where we’re going.”
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker echoed Jindal’s sentiment when he added that the Republican party “isn’t just for people who are currently dependent on the government. It’s for all Americans.”
It looks like we made the right decision, my fellow Americans. If Romney can’t even get along with his own party, how could we ever expect him to lead a bipartisan charge to improve our great nation?
Vaya con dios, Mitt. Here’s hoping 100% of us never have to hear your 47% comments again.
Last night, a year’s worth of campaigning finally came to an end as President Barack Obama defeated Republican challenger Mitt Romney in what many consider a landslide victory. Not only did Obama collect more electoral votes—the only real determinants of America’s next leader—but he also pulled ahead in the popular vote. In other words, the people have spoken and it is now official: Barack Obama will remain our President for the next four years.
And honestly, I couldn’t be happier.
Bear in mind that I don’t believe Romney is as evil or self-serving as people seem to think. Paul Ryan seems a little sketchy, but that’s only because I don’t know much about him. Nevertheless, I was fully prepared to deal with them both for the next four to eight years. I wasn’t looking forward to it, but I could handle it if it happened. I’m pretty adaptable. Fortunately, this won’t be necessary. And aside from some random news coverage the next few months, I doubt if I’ll ever hear about Mitt Romney again. Ryan may appear in 2016 as a candidate or running mate, but Mitt will likely fade into obscurity, at least in terms of national exposure.
Farewell, Mitt. Thanks for the memories.
Of course, I thought Romney would get one last jab in when he delayed his concession speech last night. Then word spread that his advisors would likely contest the results from Ohio, the state that basically put Obama over the top. Here we go again, I told myself. Fortunately, the President soon won several more states and Ohio no longer mattered. Yet Romney still hadn’t delivered his speech.
What the hell?
At first, I thought what some of you likely thought, especially my Democrat friends out there: Here he goes being an ass again. It seemed like Mitt was stalling and since it was so late, I caught myself yawning or dozing off every couple of minutes. And this went on for a while.
Then I thought about a news story I read earlier where Romney claimed to have only an acceptance speech. At the time, his confidence came off as arrogance, but I now see that he was just staying positive. Sadly, things didn’t work out and Mitt found himself sitting in that hotel room—surrounded by family, friends and staff members—but lacking a concession speech. And the clock was ticking.
I know Romney probably didn’t write the speech himself, but I was happy when he finally took the stage. And even though I had grown weary of hearing him speak—through no fault of his own and due primarily to overexposure in the media—I thought Mitt delivered a gracious, heartfelt and classy concession speech. He was visibly weary and undoubtedly crushed by the defeat, but he did the right thing, threw his support behind the President and exited the political world stage with dignity. I have newfound respect for him and sincerely wish him well in the next phase of his life.
To President Obama—my candidate of choice—I offer my deepest congratulations and look forward to the things he will accomplish these next four years. People give him a hard time, but this man walked into an economic disaster and got bombarded with unreasonable expectations right out of the gate. And whether you can admit it or not, Obama has made some positive strides: the unemployment rate is down; Osama Bin Laden is toast; the automobile industry is alive and kicking; people once denied health care are getting the help they need; and students can get money for college, to name a few.
I’m sure some Republicans in the crowd have something to say about this, but please refrain from posting mean or offensive comments. Lord knows, there’s enough of that happening on Facebook to last a lifetime. Political status updates have sparked heated arguments and friends are being de-friended left and right.
It’s all pretty ridiculous.
What we should be doing is precisely what President Obama, Democrats and Republicans should be doing soon: working together. Our beloved nation is divided. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. But are we sure this is such a bad thing? If you ask me, it’s better to view it as an opportunity. We now have a chance to put our heads together and to solve our collective problems fairly and intelligently. No one group will make the decisions and a consensus will need to be reached if we ever hope to progress and evolve as a nation. Together, we can make America great. Divided, we may never get our heads above water again. A number of clichés come to mind that could be included here, but I’m pretty sure I hit my quota already.
So here I am sitting in an Obama-Biden country again and wondering what the future will bring. It was a long and difficult campaign, but now it’s done and things can finally return to normal. And for once, I can enjoy some television without being subjected to political ads, super pacts and “I endorse this message” every 15 seconds.
Life is good.
Senator John McCain said recently that American hopes for continued improvement in the economy hurt Mitt Romney‘s chances of being the next Commander-in-Chief. If anything, they will help propel President Obama back into office.
This news brings one very obvious word to mind: DUH!
I’m no political pundit and have never considered myself to be well-versed in the areas of government or politics, but how is this any different from all the news we’ve been hearing since the presidential campaign began?
Romney’s focus has always been on the economy and how he can improve it faster than his competitor. Sure, he turned his sights on foreign affairs once “The Innocence of Muslims“caused international violence and controversy, but only out of desperation. If your economic arguments won’t fly, then why not try a different approach?
November is right around the corner and in almost every poll, Romney is lagging behind President Obama, even in battleground states like Ohio and North Carolina. Granted, polls are nothing more than predictors and have been unreliable in determining final election results, but they do have some value. The people being polled are Americans who share their opinions, after all.
Of course, there are polls that show Romney closing in on Obama, but they are few and far between. It certainly seems like Romney is on the ropes. And statements like the ones from Senator McCain seem more like GOP excuses for what could end up being a serious butt-kicking a few months from now.
I wonder what they’re going to say next…
Could things possibly get any worse for Mitt Romney‘s presidential campaign?
The day after Ambassador Stevens was killed at the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, Romney criticized President Obama’s response to the protests in the Muslim world. Recent polls show that only 26% of Americans approved of Romney’s comments, and he even drew criticism from many fellow Republicans.
And that may have been one of Mitt’s good days given the most recent news.
The Associated Press reported that a hidden-camera video of Romney addressing wealthy donors just surfaced. Since no one says it better than the candidate himself, here’s a little excerpt:
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what, There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it,” Romney said. “47 percent of Americans pay no income tax… my job is not to care about those people.”
As soon as he heard about the video, Romney immediately called a press conference, agreed the comments were “not elegantly stated” and predictably claimed they were taken out of context. Could he be telling the truth?
I doubt it.
Romney seems more interested in the needs of the wealthy than the needs of average Americans. To him, we are “victims” who depend on the government for everything and never pay our taxes. Even if these comments were taken out of context, they still hurt the people who are struggling out there in a weak economy. The same people Romney keeps asking to support him in November, mind you.
I can give Romney the benefit of the doubt where this video is concerned, but only because he has embarrassed himself on so many other occasions. I decided a long time ago that he wasn’t the right leader for our country. I”m not saying Obama is, either, but he’s certainly the lesser of two evils.
Would I be willing to change my vote if Romney dazzled me before November? Of course.
But the odds of him embarrassing himself again before Election Day are so much better.
I’m sure you’ve heard by now about the bear hug President Obama received during a visit to Big Apple Pizza in Fort Pierce, Florida, this past Sunday. Owner Scott Van Nuzer lifted the Commander-in-Chief more than a foot off the ground in a heartfelt embrace.
Of course, this opened the floodgates for all sorts of criticism online.
On the website Yelp, which allows users to rate and review businesses, detractors lashed out at Van Nuzer and gave his business negative ratings. Some claimed his partisanship was to blame.
Fortunately, positive ratings started rolling in and by the time it was all said and done, Van Nuzer’s ratings had skyrocketed.
Although I am an Obama supporter and thought this was a touching scene, I simply cannot understand how something like this could bother people. Would they react the same if Romney had been treated this way by an adoring fan and supporter?
Bear in mind that Van Nuzer is a registered Republican and nevertheless voted for Obama in 2008. He is planning to do the same this November.
This presidential election has been one of the ugliest I have ever seen, but is it necessary to start attacking regular people simply because they prefer a different candidate than you?
I suggest we all take this story for what it is: a nice gesture of love and support. Obama and the Secret Service didn’t seem to mind, so why should we?
I absolutely love Clint Eastwood. His films have filled my life with joy, action and pure entertainment. He is a talented actor, an amazing director, a skilled musician and an all-around great guy.
Should he be speaking in front of large groups as he did last night at the Republican National Convention? Maybe not.
If you were watching, then you likely noticed that most of Clint’s speech was incoherent. He’s 82 years old, so what can you expect?
Then he veered to the dramatic and started to have an imaginary conversation with President Obama, using an empty chair to represent our nation’s leader.
People were applauding but honestly, it was incredibly strange and surreal. Of course, the entire convention has been like that, so perhaps he was a good choice after all.
I confess to knowing very little about the $800 billion stimulus package proposed and implemented by the Obama administration, but there are a lot of people like me out there.
And you can’t always trust the political rhetoric being tossed around by either party right now, so it can be difficult to find answers to your stimulus questions.
Thankfully, the show “Political Punch” spoke with Michael Grunwald, author of a new book entitled “The New New Deal: The Story of Change in the Obama Era.” And he has quite a bit to say on the subject.
Check it out!
Is it me, or is this about the dumbest thing you have ever heard?
Do you think Akin should have done a little research before making such a ridiculous claim?
Oddly enough, there are lots of Republicans who oppose abortion, but who allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest. After all, who wants to parent the child of a rapist or a child doomed to mental and psychological problems because of “inbreeding,” as is the case with incest?
Then consider what Akin refers to as “legitimate rape.” What makes one rape more legitimate than another? And if rape can be legitimate, then how might it be illegitimate? Does this simply refer to false accusations of rape? Or rapes that simply aren’t reported, which represents quite a few of them?
To me, Akin’s comments defy intelligence and simply illustrate what many of us already know: many politicians have no clue.
I urge any of you who live in Missouri to vote for the “other guy” this election. Otherwise this jackass could be your next Senator.
Watch your back, Obama!
Thanks for clearing that up for us, Jenna. After all, we want to protect the rich at all costs.
Even more disconcerting is the fact that one of my personal heroes, hedgehog-looking and unfairly endowed adult film star Ron Jeremy, also seems to be backing Romney. Jeremy recently referred to Romney as “a good man” and “an amazing father.”
Does it matter that Romney and many of his supporters likely consider the porn industry to be immoral and even sinful?
I guess not since, as Jameson so eloquently stated, it’s all about the money.
What is this country coming to?