YAKIMA, Washington, October 20, 2012 ― During the presidential debate last Tuesday night, Mitt Romney’s repeated refrain was, “I know what it takes.” He repeated this line so many times that it became absurd and incongruous. If you know, Mitt, then tell us and quit beating around the bush, no pun intended.
But it was Bush like.
When a college student asked if a job would be available for him when he graduated all Mitt could tell him was, “I know what it takes to create jobs.” OK, Mitt, what does it take. He never told the student or us.
President Obama, on the other hand, was direct and to the point. He stated that in addition to the 5 million jobs already created by his administration he would create more good-paying manufacturing jobs by using tax incentives to encourage job creation here in the United States.
He wants to make sure there are re-training programs for workers who have lost their jobs.
He wants to control our own energy, which also will create thousands of new good-paying jobs.
And, President Obama plans to create jobs by rebuilding the infrastructure of America’s transportation system, a goal of rebuilding bridges and highways, which will provide thousands of good-paying jobs. Roosevelt used a similar program in the 1930s and it was very successful.
Unlike Romney, President Obama told everyone what it takes to create jobs.
Romney tried to suggest that the President used Romney’s model for saving the auto industry. That’s not correct Mitt, the President used his own structured model for saving the auto industry. First, he got the unions and management to agree on what each would give up in restructuring the debt, then he placed the companies in bankruptcy, which proceeded quickly and allowed the companies to recover. It also saved many suppliers from failing.
No, Mitt, that wasn’t your plan; your plan was to let the industry fail, then let the courts take years to fix it. In the meantime, hundreds more companies would fail and millions of workers would have been thrown out of work.
The President and Mitt then sparred over the price of gas in the United States. Mitt, of course, claimed that the President failed to take necessary steps to control the price of gas. Romney apparently doesn’t know that supply and demand in the U.S. aren’t the only things that affect gas prices. Large scale financial speculators, fears in the Middle East due to unrest and fighting, and world-wide demand for oil all contribute to the price increases we see at the pumps.
Mitt, President Obama doesn’t control the price of oil. Get real.
When Romney was asked how he would be different than George W. Bush, Mitt enlisted a five point plan: 1) Energy independence; 2) Crack down on China and promote more trade with Latin America; 3) unlike Bush, Romney would balance the budget; 4) champion small business; 5) ???. Mitt, you forgot to communicate the fifth point, what happened?
Romney’s Five Point Plan is actually a four point plan, apparently he can’t count. How will he balance a budget if he can’t count to five?
About his plan: 1) Romney’s energy plan would run roughshod over the environment; 2) Cracking down on China would probably provoke a trade war; 3) his balancing the budget is on the backs of the middle-class; 4) and championing small business is code for reducing taxes and regulations on businesses.
Note this; Romney stated in the debate that he considers himself to be a successful small businessman. Bain Capital made billions of dollars and created companies like Staples and Sports Authority, which both provided mostly low-end jobs. He was the CEO of Bain Capital. Yeah, Mitt, now that’s a small business.
President Obama rightly accused Romney of pandering to the wealthy few who are in control of 98 percent of the wealth in our country. The President’s program for the next four years is to reduce the debt, balance the budget, increase jobs and strengthen our education programs. It is admittedly a large agenda and he is asking all of us to participate in achieving these goals. Mitt, that includes the wealthy. They can afford the taxes.
Mitt, you said that the wealthy will not pay any more in taxes in your administration than they do now. In some revealing moments of the debate, you said that you would reduce everyone’s taxes by 20% but that you would eliminate deductions on the wealthy and that would result in them paying no more taxes than they do now. How is that getting them to help, how is that getting them to pay their fair share?
Romney also said that he would remove taxes on savings account interest. Wow. Nifty idea? Not really, because most of the middle-class and poor have small to no saving at all. The wealthy have a lot of savings and, therefore, would be the ones to benefit from this tax deduction.
Again, Mitt has shown his true colors; give to the rich, take from the poor.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.