Web Letters | The Nation

'President Romney'?

Another pretty face…

Eric Alterman is correct in his evaluation of the Romney/Ryan agenda. Unfortunately, Romney and his new pretty-boy veep may sway voters who in 2008 were willing to give the nice, clean-cut, well-spoken young man a chance (even though he was black), as those folks will now give the nice, clean-cut, well-spoken young man (and he is white !) a chance to set things straight. Already the media are playing the 2009 clip of Obama noting that Ryan’s ideas have to be given serious consideration. The president’s current refining of the division line between himself and the GOP and its candidates appears as empty political rhetoric in view of the president’s past conciliatory tone and actions. I am afraid that Obama will now use “scare ’m” negative attack ads, which will be subject to the media’s truth-o-meters, instead of didactically laying out the details of the Romney/Ryan economic plan. And if he takes the detailed approach, I fear the details will be lost on those voters who will be swayed seeing the two clean-cut, nice men on their screens. Fellow liberals may now revel in Romney’s veep choice; but Ryan’s ideology may matter very little to currently undecided voters.

Asher Fried

Croton-on-Hudson, NY

Aug 13 2012 - 3:46pm

'President Romney'?

Ten reasons to vote for Romney/Ryan

#1. You feel sorry for the wealthy and believe they should receive more tax breaks.
#2. You want to see Social Security destroyed.
#3. You want to see Medicare destroyed.
#4. You want to see Medicaid destroyed.
#5. You want to see laws protecting our environment repealed.
#6. You want to see laws protecting the safety of the products we buy, the foods we eat, the medicines we take and the toys our kids play with repealed or severely weakened.
#7. You want to see Obamacare repealed and people with pre-existing conditions with nowhere to go for vitally needed medical care.
#8. You want to see the 30 million people who will have medical insurance under Obamacare not be able to have medical insurance for themselves and their families.
#9. You want to see the safety net that has protected millions of middle-class and poor Americans for several decades destroyed and ruined.
#10. You want to see the greedy, selfish Wall Street predators who almost succeeded in throwing our country into a Depression succeed next time as they steal more billions.

As for me, I am a proud Democrat who will be there when the polls open to cast my vote for Barack Obama. I stood in line at 5:30 am to vote for Barack Obama in 2008 and I am going to be there again to vote for President Obama and the future of our country. I am a Democrat who believes that we are all our brothers’ (and sisters’) keeper, and I will cast my vote with pride for Barack Obama.

Mark Jeffery Koch

Cherry Hill, NJ

Aug 13 2012 - 1:06pm

'President Romney'?

Employers want to maintain control

The case for Obamacare, a k a ACA. The traditional health insurance cost for an employee (paid by the employer) is around $14,000 annually. Individually, a family can spend substantially more. One can wonder why the “über” class of people, including a lot of employers, of course, is so adamant about abolishing legislation that restructures the system so that ‘free-loader’ hospital expenses are covered by health-insured citizens, mostly under their own pay, and with the possibility, especially for small employers (as I am) to make it affordable to either have individual families own their own coverage policy, or bridge the coverage between jobs based on their own contributions.

What is scaring them? It actually could save money (as opposed to the cost-mantra you keep hearing). It is about control: controlling your healthcare, on which you will grow more and more dependent as you get older. More pre-existing conditions will naturally stack up on your health record, and your insurability will decline or it will get more and more expensive, or you will be carrying exclusions on your policy. You cannot quit and shop around looking for improved work conditions, or renumeration. The healthcare policy becomes your anchor stone under the old system. All that control is lost, by introducing the ACA legislation. It is a form of control that reeks like slavery, and I wonder why this argument hasn’t been made publicly.

Laurent Martens


Aug 9 2012 - 10:16pm

'President Romney'?

Just what we need

Gee, Eric, a “President Romney” sounds like a great administration.

It might actually get the country back on track to be the constitutional republic that the founders envisioned. And it might be an administration that understands that there actually is a Tenth Amendment—rather than the Marxist Animal Farm disaster that this current head pig has us on.

Maybe under President Romney, we’d actually make all those pigs at the trough get off their fat asses and do something with their lives other than sitting at home munching on Milk Duds and looking for those federal dollars to show up on their food stamp cards every month—so they could buy more Milk Duds.

It’s time to end all direct federal payments/subsidies to individuals—no subsidized housing, no food stamps, no Medicaid, no Aid to Dependent Children, no WIC, no cellphones… no nothing. If a state wants to do that (with money taxed from the state’s citizen—and not shipped to DC and then with a giant surcharge, back to the state), more power to them. People can then just move to states that meet their needs. Of course, the blue states will all go bankrupt while the red states will have unbelievable prosperity.

And it’s time to phase out the unsustainable and bankrupt Marxist programs of Social Security and Medicare.

Romney won’t get us there since he’s too “moderate” to do most of that. But the Tea Party Congress and president that follow him will.

Your worst nightmare.

Maria Adame

Austin, TX

Aug 9 2012 - 9:41pm