There was bound to be some push-back against yet another report on the reality of the Obama/Democrat spending record – federal spending for the last three years (2009 was primarily Bush’s budget) has grown at the slowest rate since the 1950s. Conservative Republican Media Starts Noise Campaign to Drown Out The Fact Obama’s Spending has Been Very Restrained
Fox’s Varney: “Obama Has Run Up The Debt A Great Deal More Than President Bush Did In His Full 8 Years.” From the May 23 edition of Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto
[ ]…Lou Dobbs: “President Obama Will Add … $5 Trillion” To The Debt, Compared To President Bush’s $4.9 Trillion. From the May 23 edition of Fox News’ Lou Dobbs Tonight..
If someone named Mr. Conservative Republican stole your credit card, ran up a lot of debt and then skipped town, it is just a fact that Mr. Conservative Republican is responsible for those debts. Though it is not quite that simple in this case. Mr. CR also ruined your reputation which caused you to lose your job. The debt that Mr. CR ran up is not static it is also accruing interests. What have Obama, Democrats and every American that has to work for a living inherited? The debt, the loss of income and the interest. These charts are from the OMB ( Office of Budget and Management, the non-partisan CBO ( Congressional Budget Office and Haver Analytics. Every reputable source of financial data shows that Mr. Conservative Republican treated the country like their own personal slush fund. They trashed the economy in the process and left the bills for your grand kids to pay.
Romney and his campaign seem to think selling Romney as a businessman, not a politician is a winning theme. Voters just have to ignore two things: that Romney was also a governor with the 3rd worse job creation record during his tenure and we just had a businessman President. Bush 43 had an MBA and wow that turned out really well. Paul Waldman’s notes that if Romney is going to ramble on like this, the only votes he’ll get are from the die-hard kool-aid drinkers, Mitt Romney Gets Specific
Romney: Well, Mark, let’s be a little more specific as to the area you’d like to suggest. Trade policies? Labor policies? Energy policies? Let’s take energy, for instance. I understand that in some industries, the input cost of energy is a major factor in whether an industry is going to locate in the United States or go elsewhere. So, when, at Bain Capital, we started a new steel company called Steel Dynamics in Indiana, the cost of energy was a very important factor to the success of that enterprise. When the President is making it harder to mine coal, to use coal, to take advantage of our gas resources, to make it harder to get our oil resources – all those things combine to make our cost of energy higher than it needs to be, and it drives away enterprises from this country. It sends it to places that have lower-cost energy. I understand the impact of those kinds of factors on job creation. I will have a very different policy. My policy on energy is to take advantage of coal, oil, natural gas, as well as our renewables, and nuclear – make America the largest energy producer in the world. I think we can get there, in 10 or 15 years. That will bring back manufacturing of certain high-energy intensive industries. It’ll bring back jobs. It’ll create a surprising economic revitalization of this country.
Well, there you have it. In his 25 years in the private sector, Mitt Romney learned that energy is a cost that businesses incur, and if energy were cheaper, businesses would have more money. You may need to sit down to fully assimilate the profundity of that insight, the extraordinary brilliance it takes to make an unexpected connection like that and dramatically change the way all of us look at the world. If only earlier generations of political leaders had known!
That interview was not with the ferocious Katie Couric, no one asked him what he read. It was with political journo hack Mark Halperin. If you did a nationwide check of the lip prints on Republican politician’s backsides, you’re more likely than not to find Halperin’s lip prints. So Romney gets a friendly interview where he can ramble on at length about his great new ideas and tells us that running the Olympic Committee and knowing that business’s use energy are just two examples of the razor-sharp insights he can bring to the economy. If he is going to run the USA like Bain, say goodbye to your pension, say so long to half the jobs in America that will be outsourced and the government will take most of your profits. This is a good example of the kind of gimmicky economic plans that we’ll see again under a Romney monarchy, Romney Higher Education Plan: A Giveaway To The Wall Street Banks And Predatory Schools That Fund His Campaign
2012 presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney released his higher education plan Wednesday, decrying the nation’s “education crisis.” During a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Romney blamed President Obama for rising tuition prices and increasing student debt.
Of course, tuition increases and growing debt are a phenomenon several decades in the making. And Romney’s plan would make the problem decidedly worse in two important ways, giving federal money away to Wall Street banks and predatory for-profit colleges, two industries to which Romney has extensive ties.
First, as he’s promised before, Romney intends to divert money away from student aid — instead giving it away to banks — by repealing Obama’s student loan reforms:
Reverse President Obama’s nationalization of the student loan market and welcome private sector participation in providing information, financing, and the education itself.
President Obama did not nationalize the student loan market. (Plenty of banks still make private sector student loans.) Instead, Obama and the Democrats cut private banks out of the federal student loan program, ending billions in subsidies that were needlessly going to banks for acting as loan middlemen. The money saved went into the Pell Grant program. Romney’s plan would entail taking away Pell money in order to pay Wall Street to service federal loans.
It may seem like a small thing, but conservative Republicans are not destroying democracy in one day, in one fell swoop, they do it in pieces. FDR once said, “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group.” How can conservatives claim, with any degree of veracity they are for small government, when given the chance at the state or federal level they create corrupt attachments between special interests and the government. Each step from student loans to privatizing prisons to outsourcing national security means there is less oversight and control by the people. Without that oversight, crime for instance, really does pay.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) the ethically challenged senator from Massachusetts, owned and operated by the Koch brothers tried very hard to blow up the issue of Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry. Not only did it not work, but Warren is gaining ground.
Conservatives have jumped on the numbers showing that President Obama is not polling well in Kentucky and Arkansas. There is a reason for that. That reason has not changed since the last election. A Gift For Snickering Pundits: A Map
Keep in mind: this was at the peak of Obama’s popularity. It was before he began his “war on coal,” before Obamacare, before all the things that pundits will point to to explain why this part of the country is so dead set against the president. And yet he did worse in this region than Kerry, who’s not exactly Johnny Of The Ozarks. The easy explanation for this is obvious, but I don’t think it’s actually all that simple. The more complicated answer is that this region has been shifting away from the Democrats at the national level for more than a decade now, as the national party has become more identified with highly-educated elites — a trend that Barack Obama accelerated because, well, he’s a highly-educated elite. But many voters in these parts still identify as Democrats, unlike their fellow conservatives in the Deep South, and so they turn out to vote in Democratic primaries.
A final thought on this: I happened to be in this part of the country this past weekend for a piece that I’ll be publishing soon, and I can report that in my conversations, I was surprised to find the working-class people I was speaking with not nearly as vitriolic against Obama as one might have expected. For the most part, they thought he was doing his best in a tough spot. (Though they did not care for the gay marriage announcement.) But here’s the other thing about the people I spoke with: almost to a person, they said they don’t vote — usually not in the general election, and certainly not in the primaries. Which to me was a further reminder that what we’re seeing in Arkansas and Kentucky tonight, is a very, very selective and circumstantial statement. For pundits to make anything more of it than that is to be willfully geographically and ethnographically illiterate.
A couple of things. To identify Obama as an elite because he got an elite education is a stretch. As long as schools like Yale, Brown and Harvard are tickets to the top, simply attending them does not make one an elite. Certainly given Mittens entire resume; family, education and making a living by gutting and selling companies makes him a fully paid up member of what people consider the elite. Also remember that every where in the country Democrats and the moderate left of center is gaining ground. This is one of the reason for the Republican full court press on restricting voting rights. Every year more Americans see that the far right nationalism and the voodoo economic policies of conservatism are not best for the country.