Re: Romney's Big Lie

Romney's Big Lie: Obama is responsible for W. Bush's failed policies
and incompetence. How is that possible?

On Apr 26, 7:14 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Most of your Authors have endless CAUSALITY issues.
> In THIS piece, for example, "inequality leads to economic calamity" AND that recessions/depressions are due to who has wealth AND taxes make Americans wealthy.
> I do agree, however, that Romney's Big Lie is that the fascism America has suffered for a century somehow began with Obama.
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> "I can't even call myself a conservative anymore. I don't see much left to conserve. Most of today s conservatives are to the left of yesterday s liberals. They quote John Kennedy and Martin Luther King and they have plans to save Social Security and Medicare. They think a minor tax cut would cure the country s ills." -- Joseph SobranAt 04:47 PM 4/25/2012, you wrote:Romney's Big Lie
> By Robert Borosage
> Created 04/25/2012 - 9:25am
> Mitt Romney opened the general election campaign last night in
> Manchester, New Hampshire, using his acceptance speech [1] to unleash
> a fierce attack on Barack Obama's "false promises and failed
> leadership."
> He said little about his own policies, preferring to contrast his free
> enterprise vision with what he called Obama's government-centered
> vision.
> And buoyed by his victory, Romney felt free to issue a clear defense
> of privilege.
> At the heart of the contrast Romney drew with Obama was the big lie.
> After the absurd charge that under Obama, we will have "effectively
> ceased to be a free enterprise economy," Romney made his defense of
> privilege:
> We've already seen where this path leads. It erodes freedom. It
> deadens the entrepreneurial spirit. And it hurts the very people it's
> supposed to help. Those who promise to spread the wealth around only
> ever succeed in spreading poverty.
> What world is he living in? In America, extreme levels of inequality
> have led to economic calamity. The Gilded Age extremes of the 1920s --
> when the richest 1% owned about 44% of all private wealth -- were
> followed by the Great Depression. The excesses of the Bush years --
> when the richest 1% owned nearly 40% of all private wealth -- were
> followed by the Great Recession.
> And of course, the greatest period of growth and widely shared
> prosperity in the US came in the decades after World War II. And in
> those decades, public policy purposefully "spread wealth around." The
> top end tax rate was at 90%. With labor unions representing over 30%
> of the workforce, workers shared in the benefits of rising
> productivity. The GI Bill gave an entire generation of veterans access
> to college and affordable housing. Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican
> president, built the interstate highway system vital to national
> competitiveness. Wall Street, shackled by New Deal reforms, went
> decades without a major bank crisis.
> And from 1945 to about 1975, America grew together. The rich got
> richer, but the incomes of middle and low income Americans grew faster
> than those at the top. The broad middle class -- the heart of what
> made America exceptional -- was built step by step.
> That period ended when America made a conservative turn in the
> mid-1970s, consolidated under Ronald Reagan. Top end tax rates were
> slashed; finance deregulated; domestic investments starved; trade
> policy turned over to multinationals; a fierce war waged against labor
> unions. Exactly the policies that Mitt Romney champions today.
> The results are very clear. Growth slowed. The rich captured ever more
> of its rewards. Workers didn't share in rising productivity. Incomes
> for most Americans stagnated. The middle class sank. The economy was
> racked by Wall Street excesses. And the 1% now control as much wealth
> as 90% of Americans. In 2010, the 1% captured [2] a staggering 93% of
> all of the income growth in the society.
> You got it wrong, Mitt. We can understand why you'd be confused. As
> Upton Sinclair famously said, "it is difficult to get a man to
> understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding
> it."
> Mitt has amassed a personal fortune of over 200 million dollars and
> pays 14% tax rates on $20 million in annual income, so it isn't
> surprising that he confuses this history. Spreading the wealth around
> is in the national interest, but it surely isn't in his.
> Trackback URL for this post:http://www.ourfuture.org/trackback/72562
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.