Clinton's anti-Romney rant at a fund raiser comes on the heals of his comments last week that upset the Democrat base by saying Romney's career at Bain was "Stellar" Now clinton comes back with Romney will be a disaster.

What a joke, same ol B S politics that Obama said in 2008 he would end! Today, it is worse!

Nobama 2012 !!!

A SMALL SAMPLING OF THE MANY LIES OF Willard Mitt Romney

"100,000 new jobs." Romney has repeatedly claimed that during his tenure at Bain Capital, "net-net, we created over 100,000 jobs." His campaign defends the figure by tallying the current employment totals of some companies Bain aided. That's a stretch in and of itself, but it's also not a net figure. It lacks the balancing context of how many jobs were destroyed by Bain. As the Los Angeles Times reported in December, while Bain helped some companies grow, "Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy."

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal looked closely at Bain's record under Romney and found that 22 percent "either filed for bankruptcy or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses." Which is not really terribly surprising: Bain's raison d'etre is not job creation but wealth creation for its investors. As Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler noted in an article Monday calling Romney's "100,000 jobs" figure "untenable," Romney and Bain "never could have raised money from investors if the prospectus seeking $1-million investments from the super wealthy had said it would focus on creating jobs."

As a corollary, when Romney's record has been criticized, he has dismissed criticisms as an attempt to "put free enterprise on trial." It's not an attack on free enterprise. It's an attack on Romney's strained attempt to spin his successful record of wealth-creation into one of job-creation. It's also a recognition that while a net good, the free market has its destructive side—and it's a fair question to ask, whether voters consider experience in that sort of vulture capitalism as a good qualification for the presidency. Do they want government to be run more like that kind of business?

[See a collection of political cartoons on Mitt Romney.]

Obama's jobs record. By Romney's own logic (touting jobs created but ignoring jobs lost), his attacks on President Obama's economic record are nonsensical. He told Time that Obama "has not created any new jobs," and he told Fox News last week that Obama has "lost" 2 million jobs as president. This is indeed a net figure, but also a misleading one. When Obama took office, the economy was shedding jobs at a rate of nearly 1 million jobs per month, losing roughly 3 million during the first four months of 2009. But presidential policies don't take effect as soon as the incoming chief takes his oath. Once Obama's policies started to take effect, the trend turned. The country had added 3.2 million private sector jobs over the course of 22 straight months of private sector growth. By Romney's definition, the president has created more than 3 million jobs—not enough, but also not none.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Will Mitt Romney Be the GOP Presidential Nominee?]

In fact the biggest drag on job growth is the 600,000 public sector jobs that have disappeared under the auspices of budget austerity. As my colleague Danielle Kurtzleben reported in September, "government jobs are being shed by the tens of thousands almost every month, hindering an already weak recovery."

"Entitlement society." Romney has argued that Obama "is replacing our merit-based, opportunity society with an entitlement society," where "everyone is handed the same rewards, regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk." As New York's Jonathan Chait has observed, "This accusation is approximately as accurate as claiming that the Republican Party wants to pass laws forbidding poor people from making more money." The idea that President Obama (or any Democrat) advocates for equality of outcomes simply lacks a basis in fact.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

It's an important fabrication, because it marks a turning point in Romney's attacks on Obama. Previously the president was characterized as ineffectual, but not a socialist. Forced to battle to win the GOP primaries, Romney has adopted the Tea Party's extremist rhetoric. It won't play with swing voters, even delivered in his polished drone.

Defense cuts. In an October speech on national security, Romney promised to "reverse President Obama's massive defense cuts." One problem: Pentagon spending has gone up under Obama, from $594 billion in 2008 to $666 billion. The 2011 request was for $739 billion. As Rick Perry would say, "Oops."

[Read the U.S. News debate: Are Cuts to the Defense Budget Necessary?]

No apologies. Romney has said that Obama "went around the world and apologized for America." This is part of the conservative, dog-whistle meme that Obama is un-American (and possibly even a foreigner!). While the notion of an international apology tour is a staple of the conservative case against Obama, it is also fictitious. The Washington Post's fact-checker concluded that "the claim that Obama repeatedly has apologized for the United States is not borne out by the facts, especially if his full quotes are viewed in context." Don't hold your breath waiting for an apology from Romney on this one.

Medicare cuts. Romney said that Obama is "the only president to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare." So as we said then, and repeated several times since, the health care law reduces the amount of future spending growth in Medicare. But it doesn't cut Medicare.

The rest of Romney’s statement implies that Obama is doing something no other president has done -- making cuts (which he isn’t).

Military Strength. Romney said The U.S. military is at risk of losing its "military superiority" because "our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947." However, a wide range of experts told us it’s wrong to assume that a decline in the number of ships or aircraft automatically means a weaker military. Quite the contrary: The United States is the world’s unquestioned military leader today, not just because of the number of ships and aircraft in its arsenal but also because each is stocked with top-of-the-line technology and highly trained personnel.

Thanks to the development of everything from nuclear weapons to drones, comparing today’s military to that of 60 to 100 years ago presents an egregious comparison of apples and oranges. Today’s military and political leaders face real challenges in determining the right mix of assets to deal with current and future threats, but Romney’s glib suggestion that today’s military posture is in any way similar to that of its predecessors in 1917 or 1947 is preposterous.

Free Economy. Romney said "We're only inches away from no longer being a free economy." there is little indication that the government’s role has risen dramatically enough over the past few years to threaten the kind of free market that the U.S. has operated under in recent decades. And international comparisons show that the U.S. ranks low in both total tax burden and high in economic freedom -- at least as measured by a prominent conservative think tank.

Health care act. Romney said “Eliminating "Obamacare" ... "saves $95 billion a year."

Romney said repealing the health care law would save $95 billion a year. But that only accounts for outlays in one year, 2016. Because of the revenue sources that the law established, repealing it actually adds significantly to the deficit over the long haul, according to the CBO. Romney’s is statement False.

Mitt Romney ad says labor board tried to block Boeing from building factory in South Carolina.

The NLRB’s complaint started a legal process that could ultimately have resulted in a factory closure, but the NLRB as a whole didn’t tell Boeing anything. What’s more, the legal basis for the action centered on whether Boeing was punishing the union for staging strikes, not that Boeing had opened a factory in a right-to-work state. the statement is False.

Says Barack Obama said, "If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose."

Obama was quoting John McCain. Romney took the words way out of context. Obama said in the speech. "Sen. McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’"

Says Barack Obama "never worked in the private sector" before he was elected president.

Some of the relevant jobs in Obama’s work history include:

— A stint in 1983-84 as a research assistant at Business International Corp. in New York City, where he helped write a newsletter.

— Working from 1985 to 1988 as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project in Chicago;

— Working from 1993 to 2004 as an associate, and then a partner, at the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where his work included employment-discrimination and voting-rights cases.

Obama’s State of the Union Speech. Romney said "He gave a speech the other day at his State of the Union address. He didn't even mention the deficit or the debt” At least six different times in his 2012 State of the Union address, Obama mentioned the debt or deficit by name.

"I don't have lobbyists running my campaign."

And there's no question that some key people in the Romney campaign are well-connected lobbyists:

• Kaufman, a senior adviser to Romney, is chairman of Dutko Worldwide, which has lobbied for American Pacific Corp., American Trans Air, Amgen, AT&T; – and that's just some of the As.

• Ben Ginsberg, the campaign's national counsel, is a partner in the firm Patton Boggs, a large lobbying firm that has represented Kaiser Aluminum, Lucent Technologies, the Venetian Casino Resort and many others. His bio on the firm's Web site boasts that "Mr. Ginsberg represents a variety of clients on Capitol Hill on a wide range of issues including appropriations, trade, broadcasting and health care."

• Cardenas is chairman of the Romney Hispanic Steering Committee, a finance co-chairman for the campaign and a frequent spokesman for Romney. He is a partner in Tew Cardenas, a lobbying firm with offices in Washington, Miami and Tallahassee. Records show he has lobbied for Progress Energy, Bell South, the Florida Association of Realtors and the Recreational Fishing Alliance, among others. His Web site boasts that "He has been named as one of Washington, D.C.'s top lobbyists by The Hill newspaper."

• Comstock, an adviser and frequent spokeswoman for the Romney campaign, is a founding partner of Comstock Corallo, which has lobbied for the Hearst Corp. and the National Association of Broadcasters.

"Mitt." It's a small one, but might be my favorite. During a debate in November, when moderator Wolf Blitzer introduced himself by saying that "Wolf" is really his first name, Romney greeted the audience by saying, "I'm Mitt Romney, and yes, Wolf, that's also my first name." In fact, Willard is his first name. It's a lie notable for being so mundane: Why would someone fudge their name? It's almost as if he can't control himself.

This is just a another stupid attempt to twist or turn the attention from Obama. Obama "IS" the calamitous one.

Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2011 6:42:06 AM by Reaganite Republican

The fact is that Mitt Romney is an unprincipled chameleon with ZERO core beliefs... a synthetic, calculated opportunism has taken their place.
Meanwhile, most of what he actually has said and done betrays a Big-Government social liberal.

Other fun facts regarding this 'conservative' fraud's
past actions, positions, and failures:

• refused to endorse the 1994 GOP "Contract with America"

• distanced himself from the Reagan legacy: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush"

• lost GOP House seats in both Massachusetts elections of his tenure, 2004/2006 (leaving Republicans with the least # of seats there since the Civil War)

• strongly supported gay rights until it was time to run for president in 2007

• helped raise money for Planned Parenthood

• passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters (75%) of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced as Governor, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents – including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights

• sold RomneyCare as a "conservative idea" even as it inflicted an unconstitutional mandate on Massachusetts residents and created a vast new bureaucracy

• claims he didn't raise taxes are based on deception: he had called them "fees" instead- and inflicted over 100 of them

• increased annual state fees by $500 million as governor and proposed two corporate tax increases totaling close to $400 million a year.

• under Romney, Massachusetts manufacturing jobs declined at -14% -double the national average- while government employment jumped +7.2% and state spending increased +20.7%

• spoke repeatedly of his support for "strong gun laws" that "protect us"

• although not at all required to do so, Romney proclaimed a Massachusetts "Youth Gay Pride Day"

• When challenged by Fred Thompson in debate, Romney said he "likes mandates" and "on the national level"

• Romney is an underhanded scumbag who sent "attack teams" out to politically damage perceived threat Sarah Palin

I still believe in you...I hope you still believe in me...when people ask you what this campaign is about, tell them it's still about hope, it's still about change.

I think a lot of people are going to jump from the fire and into the pan this election.

The Republicans need a platform that appeals top the majority of the country, not to please just a few of the the very privileged. This has been their problem for the last three years. They just don't get it. The Super Pacs make their image blowup in their own faces, and it makes them, look like they want to buy the Presidency, and truthfully more and more people I know that have been and are current Republicans have said they won't vote that way come November. Compromise escaped that mentality and the public is fed up with the obstructionism that gets greater with every passing day. I'm afraid the Grand Old Party lost it's shine and glitter three years ago and it will take a decade to erase that grime all over it.

Notwithstanding the religious zealots and bigots, the GOP was a world wide leader when it came to rethinking government, but now it is an intellectual pygmy overrun by complete nuts and led by the likes of Rush Oxycontin Lintball and his ilk

The true fiscal conservatives are the only sane people left in the Party of Lincoln

Reagan, the GOP icon, couldn't get the GOP nomination in this environment......he raised taxes, raised the debt ceiling, believed in compromise and was for immigration reform, which means that FOX (Dumb FUX News) and Rush would have called him a traitor and a RINO

Lincoln must be breakdancing in his grave

Really, lets make sure we give the right another shot at destroying the country.

As for jobs, it's the trend that's important, not a data point. Like anything, one data point means nothing especially if we're talking about things with a scope like unemployment, the debt, GDPs, etc...

Bill Clinton said: "Romney would be calamitous for the country". Bill Clinton LIED! ........ again.

One of Mitt Romney’s chief selling points as a presidential candidate is his business background and self-proclaimed ability to create jobs and boost a lagging economy -- a point frequently trotted out on the campaign trail in economically downtrodden swing states such as Ohio.

Yet, Romney’s record from his days as Massachusetts governor paints a different portrait, that of a politician who swept into office with big promises and a Harvard MBA but who failed to create a meaningful number of jobs for his home state and lacked a clear, concrete economic vision.

Economists from Massachusetts also say Romney was never able to solve the structural problems inherent in the state’s economy — issues that now plague the country as a whole and will challenge whoever becomes president in 2013 -- such as the decline in manufacturing and the dearth of employment for less-educated, low-income workers.

“There is nothing in his record as governor that shows he knows how to address economic failures,” says Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. “The thing that’s bothered me most about the Romney campaign is this major distortion of his record.”

When Gov. Romney took office in January 2003, the state was reeling from the rise and fall of the tech bubble in the early 2000s -- a particularly tough blow for Massachusetts, heavy with top-notch biotechnology companies and tech start-ups. These were conditions that Romney inherited, along with an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent. Over the course of Romney’s term, the state’s unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent.

Yet, look closer at the actual number of jobs created over that time period, and a decidedly less positive picture emerges. By 2007, the state had created roughly 45,800 new jobs, according to federal data, and that’s during a period the Romney camp spins as a time of economic recovery. Manufacturing employment in Massachusetts declined by more than 14 percent, according to Sum’s research, and the unemployment rate would have been much higher, local economists say, were it not for the droves of young college graduates and residents who left the state to live in lower-cost areas.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-s-massachusetts-job-record-not-as-great-as-he-wants-you-to-think-20120309

Therman, can you actually type something in your own words, or are you just going to continue to cut and past the trash you get from the AFL CIO and NAACP handbook? Here is a challenge for ya

Try finding something that is positive about Obama's record ??????

This is hilarious. Obama says that all the Republicans can do is point to the ailing economy and claim it is Obama's fault. Obama says the Republicans have no "vision." Then, Clinton says (after last week being somewhat courteous to Romney) that a Romney presidency would be "calamitous" for the country. Then Obama reaffirms his committment to "hope" and "change", whatever that means.

So, the Republican Mitt Romney is calamitous because he has no vision. Yet, Obama who has not offered his 2nd term vision either, beyond "hope" and "change", is somehow the one we need to re-elect? What's your vision for the next 4 years, Mr. Obama? You just critcized your opponent for not having one? What's yours? More debt? Higher taxes? More drone strikes? What?

I may or may not vote for Romney. I haven't decided if he has earned my vote or not. But Obama? Talking out of both sides of his mouth with Slick Willy? Seriously? Politics is so damned depressing.

Romney committed voter fraud

Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney has survived the heated GOP nominating contest so far without attracting significant attention to what may become a general election issue: allegations that he committed voter fraud in 2010. In January 2010 the former Massachusetts governor proudly cast a ballot for Republican Scott Brown in the special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. He didn’t own property in the state at the time, and had registered to vote listing his son’s unfinished basement as his residence. Massachusetts law defines a residence for voter registration purposes as “where a person dwells and which is the center of his domestic, social, and civil life.” Anyone found guilty of committing voter fraud faces up to five years behind bars and a fine of $10,000.

The issue was first raised last year, after long-shot GOP candidate Fred Karger traveled to Romney’s former community of Belmont and interviewed members of his former church — who informed Karger that the Romneys had moved — and their former realtor, who told him, “Oh, they moved to California.” Additionally, Karger claimed that Ann Romney told him that the couple lived in California.

You people wio are still afraid of Bill Clinton need to grow up and get over it. You're only pissed because he did more to help this country then that last 5 Rupublicans Administrations. Republicans are still, and always will be the party known for "POLITICS WITHOUT PRINCIPLE."

Word of wisdom from a man with lipstick on his dipstick that was not Hillary's......

Since when is a democrat not supporting a republican news?

Clinton is right! It would be tough for liberals if Romney comes in and abolishes prostitutes and free sex for Democrats. Heck, the Secret Service wouldn't know what to do! The oval office carpet would stay clean! Pelosi would lose her financiers if she couldn't pay 'em back - grin, this one is probably way off. Back to Clinton. It is important that immoral people run the US! Let the women of Afghanistan suffer! Let the women and children of Syria die! Make sure that the women of the US have birth control pills and abortion access so that Bill and his Democrats can take advantage of them. Don't women understand that Clinton is a JOHN? That Clinton despises intelligent women? Heck, Hillary doesn't go near him for fear of clap!

For those of you who keep bringing up Solyndra and keep putting on President Obama, please read the following:

"Dear Nashua Patch,

Many Republicans have claimed that President Obama rushed the loan guarantee to Solyndra for nefarious gains for some of his supporters.

Not true. As it turns out, Solyndra was a company that Bush put forward.

On January 19, one day before Obama’s inauguration, Bush was still trying to get the loan for Solyndra. The Department of Energy tabled the loan saying that is wasn’t ready for a conditional commitment. President Obama strengthened the loan application putting in more safeguards, and the loan was approved by the DOE.

Republicans indicate that it was a pay-for-play situation, as George Kaiser, an Obama supporter, invested in Solyndra but forgot to mention that CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, US Venture Partners and Madrone Capital Partners, an arm of the Walton (Wal-Mart) family, Republicans, invested in total $78,200,000 in Solyndra. Mitt Romney said that the “Inspector General said that the administration steered money to friends and family and corporate contributors.”

That is a lie. What the Inspector General said was that they looked into the matter and found nothing. Darrell Issa, (Rep.) Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee looked into it and found no criminal or political wrongdoing.

What is Solyndra? The inventors at Solyandra came up with a product, cylinders with a secret sauce (without silicon) inside that produced 20 percent more wattage than the conventional solar panels and they could produce them at the same cost of solar panels coming from China.

Why did it fail? One of the key products in solar panels is silicon; at the time Solyndra started the price of silicon was very high. New silicon deposits drove the price down by 50 percent and therefore drove the price of solar panels down at the same rate. The cost advantage was over for Solyndra. No hanky panky there, just math. Good news for American solar panel companies. Of all the loans given out by the DOE under Obama, Solyndra represents 1.3 percent and the only one that has failed.

Mitt Romney has opened up a can of worms for himself; while he was Governor of Massussetts he gave tens of millions of dollars to three start ups, Teleflex/Astrodyne, Acaphere and Spheric Inc. and Evergreen Solar. Coincidently the CEOs of these companies all gave hefty contribution to his political campaign.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Fee

Salem, NH"

Sometimes the best things in life is copy and paste.

what are Romneys positions- I have watched about 20 debates, listened to his surrogates but still have no idea what his positions are. Amazing- is Mr Etch a Stekch- still trying to figure out his core beliefs?

Bill Clinton should know. He is well known for his calamitous affair with Monica Lewinski -- the affair he denied having (under oath). The affair that brought him up for impeachment --which he luckily slithered away from unharmed.

VOTE for ROMNEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It will destroy the middle class and the elderly, poor.

Sock it to me!!!!! I want more!!!!!!!!!! I haven't lost my Home yet!!!!!

At the end of George W. Bush's Presidency the USA was losing 700,000 jobs a month!!!!!!!!!

George W. Bush: In November 2008, over 500,000 jobs were lost, which marked the largest loss of jobs in the United States in 34 years.^[131] The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in the last four months of 2008, 1.9 million jobs were lost.^[132] By the end of 2008, the U.S. had lost a total of 2.6 million jobs.

The only thing I can do is laugh at the Republicans!!!! THEY JUST CAN'T WAIT!!!

Republicans have not had enough, they want MORE!!!! of the SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Republicans have brain DAMAGE!!! Caused by listening to FOX NEWS, THE EIB NETWORK!!!!

Republicans can't wait to get the Voucher so they can buy their own Health Insurance!!!

The Rich and the Stock Market will go wild when Republicans Privatize Social Security!!!

And all of us will get screwed!!!

I hear Republicans talk of Fiscal Responsibility!!!!

Romney commented that COMPANIES ARE PEOPLE TOO!!! Then if companies are people "WHY DON'T THEY PAY TAXES LIKE PEOPLE DO"

The Beat goes ON!!!

This government worked!!! Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton's last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surpluses stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever.

Republicans who have destroyed America!!! And the beat goes on!!!!!!!!!!

1- Nixon

2- Reagan

3- H.W. Bush

4- George W. Bush

5- Mitt Romney

The U.S. is starting to look like it is entering just such a death spiral. It is foretold not simply by the large and growing deficits, nor by the fact that their carrying costs will rise quickly as interest rates rise. Rather, it is the fact that these trends are becoming irreversible, a structural part of the U.S. economy.

Richard Nixon: INFLATION!!! Our money is not worth ANYTHING!!!, this is why you pay $30,000 dollars for a car, and anything you buy is less product for more dollars!! Nixon convened a summit of his economic advisers at Camp David. He then announced temporary wage and price controls, allowed the dollar to float against other currencies, and ended the convertibility of the dollar into gold, which made the dollar’s value POLITICAL DOLLARS!!!! Just print more money!!!!

Herbert Stein, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Richard Nixon was fond of saying, Things that can't go on forever, don't.

Ronald Reagan: Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans from 70% to 38%. He promised it would spur an orgy of investment and rocket the economy to new levels of production and prosperity. Instead, his supply side economics did the exact opposite. It produced the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Watergate Scandal The Watergate scandal resulted in 69 government officials being charged and 48 being found guilty, and the resignation of President Reagan.

H.W.Bush: By 1992, interest and inflation rates were the lowest in years, but by midyear the unemployment rate reached 7.8 percent, the highest since 1984.^[11] In September 1992, the Census Bureau reported that 14.2 percent of all Americans lived in poverty.

George W. Bush: Initiated a 1.35 trillion tax cut program—one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history.

Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs. Others, including the Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O'Neill, were opposed to some of the tax cuts on the basis that they would contribute to budget deficits and undermine Social Security.

By October 2008, due to increases in domestic and foreign spending, the national debt had risen to $11.3 trillion.

Bush's tax cuts and the 10 year deficit explodes to a mind-boggling $7.9 trillion. Within ten years, the government will owe more than $15 trillion. And this, at precisely the time the government needs fiscal solvency to begin paying the Baby Boomers their Social Security.

"The general fund has been borrowing from Social Security and we've borrowed well over $2 trillion," he said. "That money has got to be paid back.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personal Invectives Distract from Economic Growth: (Fear is Not Helpful)

The deeply fearful are perhaps, justified by their make up to live in fear and even the fear of challenging those fears.

Fear within the shadow of fear, it is very dark, and it's the last place to look for what it takes to find courage, the shadow is empty.

Those who labor in fear and within its shadows often find comfort with others in sharing fears.

This is an honest to goodness personality characteristic of people who often are preyed upon by the manipulators of fear, harvesting a ready constituency willing to find comfort.

The wolf's syndrome, the wolf's fear is to take caution; he will manipulate the fearful just as the talented herding dog gathers the sheep into a corner. I don't make conclusions, but decades of observation make the possibilities very clear, once clear the remaining details are just left behind.

Those observations are available for everyone with an interest and a long memory, but few take it further. We don't want to take advantage of others who act like the fearful the herd, it is immoral, and being right is more valuable, and easier to digest.

What is this? Except to understand that across several generations, we see each person and group clearly. What, when asking for the wisdom of a change would each person from the fear group agree with? The first, last and only instinct is to say No, no to 1930's problems, no to 1940's problems,
no to 1950's problems, no to 1960's problems, no to 1970's problems, no to 1980's problems, no to 1990's problems, no to 2000's problems, and no to 2010's problems. The "No" answer is not the least bit unexpected, in fact it is safe, guaranteed and it avoids knowing anything at all. These No people are inscrutable for any reason, no justification, no exchange of information, just one answer with a response and it is No.

The World that does change, sweeps the No away, and replaces it with growth. The fearful seeing growth and they are attracted to the sweetness, they feel safer. But as we see the No group does not have much to offer when growth slow or stops. This says nothing of their own-cautious gathered wealth which may have grown, but it amplifies the point about fear. If you went from pauper to king, from fearing starvation, to what else, but losing your kingdom you wealth, the king brings his fear along with him, and I am sure you can envision the king's problem, yielding wealth for risk and investment. The king does not yield the moat is filled and the draw bridge goes up.

Now what happens when the fearful become more fearful and with their new wealth to fear all the more, they chose to elect as their leader of the fearful, the most feared wolf, who then is taking the real risk? The fearful lead by the fearful are not going to take any such risk, are risk adverse and are ever so willing to accept their austere fate. Not taking risk and being well off translates well to those who accept their fate, they are not poor and will not starve, and so the austerity method of non-resourceful stagnation, becomes predominant in the risk-averse economic system. The risk adverse economic system cannot do anything but decline. The first few years of the Great Depression were the "No period" of deflation disaster, driven by fear until it became unbearable. Yes we can fear that this lengthy period will be repeated even as we know of the problem and waste that fore knowledge.

The advent of capitalism, circa 1700, has been marked by non-cyclic episodes where growth mishaps compounded by an ensuing decline caused by fear and then mislead by the more fearful, the "No people" or the risk averse, were after a time threated enough to do something, even if by a natural disaster or other human development. Were it not for the new world abundant resources and modern energy resources the growth over the past 300 years would be very, very different.

The continuing economic crises is highly informed, the concentration of fear and the concentration of wealth are at the highest level analogous to the Black/Death Plague Years 1348-1350. Analogous; not quite in the same order, but in reverse. The Renaissance followed the redistribution of wealth resulting from the demise of wealthy land and property holders that in turn lead to much higher capital spending. Traveling back in time we see the Medieval/Dark Age period as being caused by ghastly austerity, exactly what you'd expect from a falling Roman Empire! Doubt it as you will, but please consider that it took 1,500 years to go from the Roman Heyday to the discover of the whole other half of the world, is that conservative, fearful and austere belief at it very best.

You may not like time travel, but losing 1,500 years to fear, is well, uh fearsome.

It will take a miracle to get a world full of dodo birds, to know themselves, then through knowledge to know and conquer fear. Assuredly we will not see one leader who can even ask if what I have said makes sense. To know the economic fear cycle to know how fear is perpetuated allow you to understand the cause of fear, that fear is just another item on the do list to punch.

Farmer: What we have here is fifty foot pile or manure, and I have to dig out forty five feet, to get to the five foot pile that should have been moved before, and down to solid earth that can be planted, darn fools.

It has not escaped my notice that people on the right still have nothing but hatred for Bill Clinton even though he balanced the budget and kept us out of unneccessary wars. He did not cut taxes and fight two wars at the same time. Of course, I rarely hear anyone talk about G. W. at all. I guess we don't live in the past.