Didn’t watch Obama’s speech last night. Actually forgot it was even on, not that I would have watched anyway.
But here’s the gist that I get from the paper. Barack’s plan is better, though it’s also going to be harder.
Does he mean legimately tougher like people have to suck it up and deal with a little hardship now to have prosperity later or harder in the sense that it’s going to make everything more difficult.
I’m sure he thinks it’s choice A, but reality says it’s choice B. Why?
After 4 years he still has’t done anything to improve America’s odds in the future. He hasn’t done anything that makes it tougher for now while moving towards a stronger future. Evidence in the record high unemployment, disability roles, and food stamps.
You know what would be hard, people not spending their entire lives on government assistance. Illegal immigrants being dealt with definitively and not allowed to walk the streets free and unafraid of prosecution. The government making an effort to being cutting the $16 trillion deficit it currently has, the interest alone on which is too much for us to pay for. Or even the government cutting the size of it’s employee ranks, perhaps we could start with the TSA.
Obama says the republicans have no plan or they don’t want us to see it. But really if they have no plan what’s the difference? What would be different if it’s Mitt Romney running around with no plans or Obama.
Seems like the biggest difference is that Mitt Romney has actually done stuff before, whereas looking back at Obamas career what we find is a freshmen Senator who managed to merely vote present most of the time.
Lead, Follow or get the hell out of the way!