Shouldn't the PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE have the vision for the country and the Vice Presidential candidate SHARE it?
". . . I don't think I have anything for you on the V.P. running mate. Other
than I-- I certainly expect to have a person that has a strength of
character, a vision for the country, that, that adds something to the political discourse about the direction of the country. I
mean, I happen to believe this is a defining election for America; that
we're going to be voting for what kind of America we're going to have. . . "
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
. . . want to reconsider if this is YOUR current candidate of choice. . .
(from Michael Cohen guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 June 2012 13.31 EDT) "Granted, presidential candidates are no strangers to disingenuous or overstated claims; it's pretty much endemic to the business. But (Mitt) Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney. . . In fact, lying is really the only appropriate word to use here, because, well, Romney lies a lot. . .
In his book, appropriately titled "No Apologies", Romney argues the following: "Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signaling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable." Nothing about this sentence is true.
President Obama never went around the world and apologized for America – and yet, even after multiple news organizations have pointed out this is a "pants on fire" lie, Romney keeps making it. Indeed, the "Obama apology tour", along with the president bowing down to the King of Saudi Arabia, are practically the lodestars of the GOP's criticism of Obama's foreign policy performance (the Saudi thing isn't true either).
The economy is really where the truth takes its greatest vacation in Romney world. First, there is Romney's claim that the 2009 stimulus passed by Congress and signed by President Obama "didn't work". According to Romney, "that stimulus didn't put more private-sector people to work." While one can quibble over whether the stimulus went far enough, the idea that it didn't create private-sector jobs has no relationship to reality. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus bill created more than 3m jobs – a view shared by 80% of economists polled by the Chicago Booth School of Business (only 4% disagree).
And the list goes on. Romney has accused Obama of raising taxes – in reality, they've gone down under his presidency, and largely because of that stimulus bill that Romney loves to criticize. . .
Then, there is the recent Romney nugget that the Obama administration passed Obamacare with the full knowledge that it "would slow down the economic recovery in this country" and that the White House "knew that before they passed it". It's an argument so clearly spun from whole cloth that according to Jonathan Chait, the acerbic political columnist for New York Magazine, Romney is "Just Making Stuff Up Now". . .
This is perhaps the most interesting and disturbing element of Romney's tireless obfuscation: that even when corrected, it has little impact on the presumptive GOP nominee's behavior. This is happening at a time when fact-checking operations in major media outlets have increased significantly, yet that appears to have no effect on the Romney campaign.
What is the proper response when, even after it's pointed out that the candidate is not telling the truth, he keeps doing it? Romney actually has a telling rejoinder for this. When a reporter challenged his oft-stated assertion that President Obama had made the economy worse (factually, not correct), he denied ever saying it in the first place. It's a lie on top of a lie. . . "
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
. . . like Mitt Romney, whose family fortune is valued at about $250 million, pays only a 15% effective income tax, surely we whose families have nowhere near that amount of money, and who work hard every day for 30, 35 or 40 years to make but a mere fraction of $22 million annually have absolutely no right to complain about paying over 35% in taxes. Everyone plays on a level field in Mitt's free market and what's stopping you and me from making a $250 million fortune? Laziness, of course.
RIGHT???
Of course if you lean right, you have the "Other" top choice of Gingrich, who paid about 31% and whose proposed changes to the tax code would allow someone in a position comparable to Romney to pay $0 income taxes.
Tough Choice. Mmmmmmm!!
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney owns investments worth
between $7 million and $32 million in offshore-based holdings. These accounts enable wealthy investors to
defer paying U.S. taxes on some assets, according to tax experts. Romney is purported to have
at least six funds set up in the Cayman Islands but he has not identified all or the size of his accounts there. There is no indication Romney uses the accounts to dodge any
U.S. tax obligations. Although the Caymans have often been associated with
individuals and corporations seeking to avoid paying U.S. taxes, there is no evidence that Romney holds such accounts for this purpose.
It is legal for U.S. residents to own investment accounts that
are set up there — if they file the proper forms with the Internal
Revenue Service and pay the appropriate taxes.
Legal? Yes. Ethical?
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
Download
your
very own copy of
ANOTHER SHOT
by Ray
Jozwiak
