You are correct it is more than one man. And I've seen what the republicans have to offer. More tax on everyone but he rich. No compromising no balance no nothing a do nothing group whose pockets keep getting fatter while the rest of Americans get poorer.
Republicans taking over SCOTUS spells a terrible thing for this country also. Good bye to any social justice. Seein as our SCOTUS is all about their political sides these day than keeping the intent of our laws in balance.
This ideal that republican politicians have earned a real paycheck is a bunch of crap too. People really need to look at the truth of it. The people in charge that we keep voting in have nothing in common with the common citizen. These guys are part of the small group of wealthy and elite whom don't play by the same rules. They aren't going into politics to help you or anyone else. They care about themselves and their wallets.
Oh and Romney barley created any job anywhere but overseas....
Also I how you do believe that the banks needs regulation????? If not we need to have a talk about how the recession started.
How is that it's more tax on the rich, when the Bush tax cuts also gave a tax Decrease to the middle class? It's convenient how, now, we are 'raising taxes on the middle class at the expense of the rich', when the Bush tax cuts benefited both? You can't have it both ways. Either both got the benefit or neither did.
The truth is, you want to RAISE taxes on the upper earners, but no one else, because it FEELS GOOD to stick it to those you envy. Some of those upper earners are ready to contribut more, but NOT UNLESS THEY SEE EVERYONE ELSE SHARING THE LOAD, and that's not what's happening today. Sooner or later, you will kill the goose with the golden egg, and then we'll ALL be indigent - but of course, that would make you FEEL GOOD, because everybody would be EQUALLY POOR.
You have a man in office that used his 'minority status' to gain his opportunity for an education, paid for with TAX DOLLARS EARNED by someone else, Who never ran a business or made a payroll, who thinks he's smarter about business than A businessman who made MILLIONS? Romney didn't close any plant or sell any asset that wasn't in need of SELLING, because if it had been worth more to keep it open, he WOULD HAVE. You forget that companies don't solely exist to provide salaries or jobs for their employees, they exist to make a profit for their OWNERS. Normally those things kinda go hand in hand, but not always, and that's just the way it is.
In 2008, we had two choices, keep everyone at the same pay and hours, and lose our azz, or let some people go in order to save the jobs we could while still remaining in the black. We chose to save what we could. I'm sorry some of those people lost their jobs, and we gave them severance and a good recommendation, and all of them found jobs elsewhere. It is what it is, a matter of SURVIVAL. A lot of companies didn't get it, and are now GONE.
Oh, you bet I think that banks need some regs, but the Frank/Dodd act (all 700 pages requiring regulations from 20 agencies) has created a monster that none of them could fathom. The big banks (who for the most part were the worst offenders) have teams of layers and lobbiests working for them, but the small local, community and regional banks, who were not for the most part those who were guilty of the shennanigans that would have brought down the system, but were bailed out by the government have literally been drowned in the new requirements.
At one time, investment banks and 'regular' banks were separated by regulation, and we need to go back to that, as NO bank should ever be TOO BIG TO FAIL, and most Tea Party supporters agree with that. Most Tea Party members are small, independent business people who dug and scraped their way to some measure of success, not the big corporate entities that the liberals like to label them as.
lease:
