propecia lyrics



Nov 06

Campaign promises that will certainly be broken.

Here are some of the big campaign promises made by both candidates, and why there is absolutely no chance that they’ll be kept if that candidate wins the election.


1. Roll back Bush tax cuts for upper-income people.

Not going to happen.  The GOP is going to control the House.  Current projections are that they’ll have 242 seats.  Even if that number is high, they GOP will still easily have all the seats they need in order to block that effort.

The GOP has opposed literally every piece of Democrat-based legislation for the last four years (even if it would undoubtedly be good for America…”you” have blogged about this, when the GOP opposed a bill strictly for Veteran’s benefits).

Now, if Obama wins by a solid margin (right now, Nate Silver has him at 86.3% odds to win the electoral college with 307 EC votes, and that is trending heavily upward in Obama’s favor so it could be an even bigger blowout), then the GOP might realize that working against Obama (and therefore against a flourishing America) as a matter of principle angered a tremendous number of voters, and they may be more willing to work with him.

That’s a hard call to make.  The Republicans also may just go back into gridlock (as Romney is promising).  But even if the GOP decides to start being slightly bipartisan, they won’t budge on the Bush tax cuts, and so even if Obama plays hardball, he probably won’t be able to make this happen.

2.  Transparency.

While Obama’s a solid diplomat (he’s undone much of Bush’s foreign relations damage), his administration has fought for the State Secret’s Privilege over and over again.

Obama said he would “filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies”, and then he supported the FISA bill extension that did precisely that. Then, when it was challenged, he wanted it dismissed. Later, the President supported its extension.

Before his 2008 election Obama talked about putting an end to torture, yet he the DoJ under Obama has prosecuted the whistle blowers on American torture and never, ever the perpetrators, even though the US is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, which obligates us to prosecute anyone who orders or engages in torture regardless of the reason. The argument has been that it’s important to look forward rather than backward, but then why prosecute the whistle blowers?

In his 2008 campaign, Obama argued for civil trials for terror suspects, yet he has asked for the power of indefinite detention and military tribunals for many terror suspects.

Obama then issued an executive order against nations doing the exact same thing.

He also signed the National Defense Authorization Act. I’m actually not angry at Obama for signing it. The NDAA is not a single measure, it is our defense budget. It’s how our troops get paid. Last year the NDAA was obstructed until the end the year, which gave the President no real option but to sign it as it was – otherwise our troops wouldn’t have gotten paid. When signing it, the President griped about the indefinite detention portion.

But then he fought for it. His DoJ is still fighting for it. That’s what infuriates me That behavior will not change.


1“I’m not going to raise taxes on anyone,” a pledge also rendered as, “I will not raise taxes on the middle class.”

This is flat out, unadulterated malarkey.  Romney’s story is that he’s going to implement at 20% tax cut across the board and then remove entitlements and deductions so that the middle class gets a break.  However, all reliable economic experts have said this is mathematically impossible considering Romney’s other pledge to not run America in the red.  The only way to keep us in the black is to increase the taxes on the middle class.

The response from Romney is that six “studies” rebut the economic experts.  But five of them are literally blog posts and one of the lone study comes from one of Bush’s economic advisers.

2.  Repeal Obama’s health care law.

Not gonna happen.  With his philosophy of handing responsibility to the states, he must realize that many states don’t want out of the law.  To roll it back federally, he’d have to work against SCOTUS precedent, which just ain’t gonna happen.  What’s more, if he wanted to do it legislatively, he’d need the help of a senate that will be controlled by the Dems, and they’re as likely to budge on this as the Reps are on the Bush tax cuts.

3. “North American energy independence by 2020.”

Might happen, but he can’t promise it.  Given present technology, it’s impossible, and Mitt has no way of accurately predicting what technologies will be invented during his term.

This also makes no economic sense.  We’re tied to oil/gas for a while, whether we like it or not, and infrastructure changes would only determine how much of those resources we use, they won’t lower the price of them.  Yes, we can produce some of them here at home, but we sell a lot of it to other countries.  Why?  Because other countries, with more of these resources and with better infrastructure for extracting them, can produce them for much cheaper than we.  So we buy cheap and sell ours to countries that will pay our higher prices. So even if we can harvest our own resources, it makes good economic sense to buy it cheaper elsewhere while we work on our own technologies.  If Romney thinks that will change in just eight years, he’s a fool.  If he wants to spend more money to use our own resources right now (which impacts his promise to “get trade working”) then he needs to rethink his already tenuous economic plan.


1.  Energy: Coal.

Both of them are talking up coal, and both of them are going to break this promise like it was their job if they get into office.  I blogged about this already.

both of these candidates are also promising to move America in the direction of renewable energy.  They’ve probably promised this because relying on coal for energy is about as good for the environmentas using crystal meth for your daily pick-me-up.  So it makes sense to promise Americans that you’re going to do the smart thing and transition us into a nation reliant on cleaner, more renewable energy.

You know who loses jobs when that happens?  Coal workers.  And both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama know this.  It sucks for the coal workers, but as the leader of a nation, you must think about what’s best for everybody, and tons of new jobs in renewable energy and an environment that doesn’t feel like it needs a shower just for having America around is clearly the way to go.  However, promising the moon to every group of voters you come across when you know you can’t deliver still makes you a lousy human being.

How hard would it have been to say that?  Yet, in the debate last night, Romney said

Look, I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities; ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix.

But what we don’t need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries. I was in coal country. People grabbed my arms and said, “Please save my job.” The head of the EPA said, “You can’t build a coal plant. You’ll virtually — it’s virtually impossible given our regulations.” When the president ran for office, he said if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but you’ll go bankrupt. That’s not the right course for America.

And Obama said…

Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment.

He also said

And when I hear Governor Romney say he’s a big coal guy, I mean, keep in mind, when — Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, “This plant kills,” and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal.

But Romney was right!  Coal is dangerous and bad for he environment.  But, of course, that is a politically uncomfortable truth and so there isn’t a chance it would get brought up in the discussion of energy.  Romney, who has been on the right side of the coal issue, doesn’t want to lose those votes, so again he runs away from his record.

Obama, on the other hand, knows full well that coal must die for clean energy to be achieved, and yet he lies through his teeth about getting us to clean energy and boasting about the increase in coal production.

And the American people continue to lose for their political success.  What a circus.

All you coal workers who bought into their stories about the future of coal?  Yeah, you got played.


Leave a Reply

No fields are required. If provided, your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>