Relax – it was just an election

Bob...Thank you for your wonderfully kind,tasteful and
humble letter. Rest assured..The country is larger and
strong enough to survive the damage any one person who
sits in the Oval office. So your right...the birds are
singing today, the air is crisp and with the smell of
Fall and life goes on. I got to ask all of you Leftists
a question. Four years from now are you still going to
be on the "It's Bush's fault" bandwagon?? Or, are you
and Obama going to "man up" and take responsibility for
for mistakes,botched policies and poor choices? I kind
of think that will not be the case. More than likely we
will be hearing you, Tom Sokoloski and the Democrat
machine blaming Bush for anything that goes wrong for
Obama in the next four years. Then, in 2016 you will be
telling us that Bush screwed things up so bad that we
need four more years of Joe Biden (or who ever) to fix
what Bush destroyed. Please!!! I think your bottle of
"blame Bush" magic potion is about to run out. It should
have after Obama's first four years. I think the American
public will figure this out four years from now.

Wayne -

Thanks for your comments. We agree: no need to keep blaming Bush, now or in 2016. The election proved that voters know the mess was Bush's fault, so why keep repeating it? They apparently didn't blame Obama or his policies and they re-elected him handsomely (swept the "battleground" states, the popular vote and ended with a 332-206 electoral college blow-out). I think the rhetoric of '12 will fade with time.

But you're right: if things do go wrong going forward, Dems certainly can't blame Bush, nor will they need to. They will have a handy scapegoat in House Republicans who, as late as this morning, were still trying to protect the 1%, as if the election never happened. For better or worse, the GOP really can't "do" anything positive without Obama getting credit as soon as he signs the legislation. They can only obstruct, to make things "go wrong" so the Dem nominee in '16 will look bad. But which Dem nominee? Obama isn't running in '16 &, dumb as they are, I doubt House Republicans will repeat a failed strategy to try to "make him a two-term president."

Still, we can be thankful that unless one of his relatives runs in '16, no one will mention Bush. Heck, Mr. Romney didn't want to talk about him this time. :-)

Finally, you mentioned Biden -- likeable, 100% experienced, savvy and always 'good for a gaffe,' but he'll be too old & tired in 2016. If not Hillary, Dems might nominate a powerful, capable Latina, if for no other reason that to drive the sex-and-immigration obsessed GOP base crazy and suck them into another vote-killing discussion of women's reproductive rights and self-deportation. Wizards.

Wayne -

Thanks for your comments. We agree: no need to keep blaming Bush, now or in 2016. The election proved that voters know the mess was Bush's fault, so why keep repeating it? They apparently didn't blame Obama or his policies and they re-elected him handsomely (swept the "battleground" states, the popular vote and ended with a 332-206 electoral college blow-out). I think the rhetoric of '12 will fade with time.

But you're right: if things do go wrong going forward, Dems certainly can't blame Bush, nor will they need to. They will have a handy scapegoat in House Republicans who, as late as this morning, were still trying to protect the 1%, as if the election never happened. For better or worse, the GOP really can't "do" anything positive without Obama getting credit as soon as he signs the legislation. They can only obstruct, to make things "go wrong" so the Dem nominee in '16 will look bad. But which Dem nominee? Obama isn't running in '16 &, dumb as they are, I doubt House Republicans will repeat a failed strategy to try to "make him a two-term president."

Still, we can be thankful that unless one of his relatives runs in '16, no one will mention Bush. Heck, Mr. Romney didn't want to talk about him this time. :-)

Finally, you mentioned Biden -- likable, 100% experienced, savvy and always 'good for a gaffe,' but he'll be too old & tired in 2016. If not Hillary, Dems might nominate a powerful, capable Latina, if for no other reason that to drive the sex-and-immigration obsessed GOP base crazy and suck them into another vote-killing discussion of women's reproductive rights and self-deportation. Wizards.

Interesting how both the PD and IT made this the letter of the day. No bias here from their parent company.

And Bob, thank you for affirming that there is always an excuse and someone else to blame for bad outcomes of policies and laws enacted by democrats.

I keep checking the obits for "America"...I hope there are enough patriots to fight off those who want to pull the plug.

Bob..Just remember that Obama is not a King and this is
not a Monarchy. Having a GOP House might be the only
line of defense from Obama going "pedal-to-the-metal"
with a radical Left-Wing agenda. Unless of course that
is the direction you want Obama to go. In that case let
me remind you, "power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts..
absolutely". Obama said back in his election campaign of
2008 that NO ONE who made under $250K would see their taxes
increased. I remember Tom Sokoloski and I talking about this
and he was emphatic that Obama would keep that pledge. He
was wrong as my taxes were apx. $1400 more in 2011 then they
were in 2010. My gross incomes for both years was about
the same. Now the Bush tax cuts are slated to end on 12/31/12.
The Democratic spin machine has labeled these tax cuts as
"for the rich" but I have a feeling that I am going to be one
of those "rich" that will get hit. The GOP held House might
be the only protection we have from the Obama Adm. grabbing
all of us by the ankles and shaking us upside down and draining
our pockets of everything.

Wayne - Interesting to hear your taxes increased $1,400 in 2011 vs. 2010 despite Mr. Obama's pledge not to raise them on folks making less than $250K.

Why or how do you think that happened? I ask because the federal government has passed no tax increases I am aware of since Obama took office. Certainly none were even proposed in the Republican-controlled House, where by law all tax bills must originate. The Tea-Party congressmen elected in 2010 has blocked all tax increases & bragged about it -- you might remember that they almost bankrupted the country last year over the debt ceiling fight, which they eventually lost.
Maybe you could review your tax returns again and tell us exactly where that increase came from. If it was from increases in property, sewer or water taxes, or the new hospital assessment, or your income went up, or you lost a deduction or a dependent --- any of those things might have raised your taxes, but none of them would have been Obama's fault. As I'm sure you know, one of the reasons the federal deficit & debt haven't been reduced or the budget balanced in CA is that Republicans have blocked all tax increases.
But I agree with you: if you don't make $250K a year, you are definitely not rich, but if Romney would have won, you definitely would be a lot poorer under the Ryan plan. Don't know what Romney's plan was, since he lost because (among may other reasons) he could never tell us what his plans were.

Wayne - Interesting to hear your taxes increased $1,400 in 2011 vs. 2010 despite Mr. Obama's pledge not to raise them on folks making less than $250K.

Why or how do you think that happened? I ask because the federal government has passed no tax increases I am aware of since Obama took office. Certainly none were even proposed in the Republican-controlled House, where by law all tax bills must originate. The Tea-Party congressmen elected in 2010 has blocked all tax increases & bragged about it -- you might remember that they almost bankrupted the country last year over the debt ceiling fight, which they eventually lost.
Maybe you could review your tax returns again and tell us exactly where that increase came from. If it was from increases in property, sewer or water taxes, or the new hospital assessment, or your income went up, or you lost a deduction or a dependent --- any of those things might have raised your taxes, but none of them would have been Obama's fault. As I'm sure you know, one of the reasons the federal deficit & debt haven't been reduced or the budget balanced in CA is that Republicans have blocked all tax increases.
But I agree with you: if you don't make $250K a year, you are definitely not rich, but if Romney would have won, you definitely would be a lot poorer under the Ryan plan. Don't know what Romney's plan was, since he lost because (among may other reasons) he could never tell us what his plans were.

Romney not knowing what his plans were is kind of like Obama
never reading his Obamacare bill from cover-to-cover. He doesn't
even know what is in his bill because he did NOT write it. The
Devil is in the details as they say. I know that businesses
are going to reduce employee work weeks to avoid having to provide
healthcare coverage. In this day and age many companies are
trying to maintain a 10% (or less) profit margin and they cannot
afford to provide all their employees healthcare. Once a business
profit falls to low they will just flat out quit and go bankrupt.

Wayne, you said: “Romney not knowing what his plans were is kind of like Obama never reading his Obamacare bill from cover-to-cover. He doesn't even know what is in his bill because he did NOT write it.”

Wayne, we never knew what Romney’s plans were because he never shared them with us; one of the reasons for his momentous and ignoble defeat.

Sorry Wayne, but your quote about Obama not knowing what’s in his own bill is a bit disingenuous, don't you agree? Here is what we are getting from Obamacare:

Guarantees affordable health insurance to 32 million folks who are currently uninsured.

Small businesses will receive tax cuts to help them afford health coverage for all their employees.

Young people will be given coverage under their parents' plan until the age of 26.

Uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions will be covered.

Those already insured will be protected from seeing their insurance revoked when they get sick, or facing restrictive annual limits on the care they receive.

Obamacare slashes the cost of healthcare, cutting billions of dollars from the deficit.

Pretty good deal, don't you think?