do you ever just feel so awkward when you buy something and pay in cash and the cashier gives you the change back but you take a few seconds to put the money in your wallet and you can feel the world judging you from afar
A NOTE FROM A CASHIER: YES WE ARE FUCKING JUDGING YOU MOVE THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY YOU ARE HOLDING PEOPLE AND THEIR SHIT UP BYE
Last year life sucked. in the closet&being stuck between a guy who I didnt love anymore&a girl I had fallen for. rumors flew,&my life came screaming&crashing down onto my head. I felt utterly&completely judged &helpless. I couldnt go on fb let alone survive school. I asked you what to do&you told me to tell them all to screw themselves. It meant a lot to me, seeing someone 100s of miles away take time&actually give a fuck. This year, I'm out! I've been with my gf for 7 amazing months:) thank you
To see the President win reelection meant a lot to me in so many different ways it’s actually indescribable. Having worked on his campaign in 2008, I was beyond inspired by Barack Obama. He moved me in a way that nothing really ever had before. To me, he represented something larger than a political message. He showed me that hope, change, belief in yourself and others, and determination really can bring about real change. When he won in 2008, I felt immense pride and accomplishment. His campaign was unlike any campaign this country had ever seen. It brought people together because we knew that this time, we had only one shot to bring about real change. I may seem like a political know it all the time, so please understand when I say that working on that campaign gave me a sense of purpose I had never felt before. I felt in my heart that it is where I belonged and that Barack Obama needed to be my President. I may have only been 13, but I know what I felt and I know what I believed. After watching him in his first four terms, I knew that my hard work had not gone to waste. Barack Obama fought for me everyday he was in office, and I knew that. I watched him accomplish so much in his first four years. I watched him barrel through huge obstacles that critics put in his way. This man is my role model, and when he announced that he believed I had a right to marry the person I love, I knew that in 2012, he had to win again. The progress and change we had achieved in the first four years could not go to waste. When 2012 rolled around, I was 17. I was more educated and less naive. But I still had my convictions, and I still had my beliefs. Barack Obama may have grayed just a tad, but his convictions and beliefs stood just as true as they did four years ago. I knew that I had to fight for him again, and that this time it had to be even harder. And so I did. I joined the campaign again and visited neighborhoods, called swing states, donated, fund raised, the whole thing. And when last Tuesday rolled around, I knew in my heart that he was going to win. I knew that our cause was just. I knew that hope and change may not be a “strategy” to some people, but that it was something worth fighting for. I knew that my President had fought for me everyday he was in office, and that I had to do the same for him. So I did. And when he was the projected winner, I felt everything I felt in 2008 again, only I felt more fulfilled. This was truly our victory. Seeing the man you fought so hard for, seeing the man who fought so hard for you, reelected was something I cannot even begin to describe. This was more than election to me. Millions of people, including me, had propelled the man we saw as one of the last hopes for this country to victory. And when the odds are stacked against you from the beginning, achieving progress and fully realizing the meaning of the word “forward” means a ton more.
i follow you on instagram. I was just wondering, if you love Obama so much why did you portray Romney?
If you’re referring to the Presidential Debate I did in school, I portrayed Romney because I thought that it is important to show that you can argue the other side just as well as the side you yourself support. I was Mitt Romney because I chose to take the other side and prove that I know the Republican side, and that is why I disagree with it. Knowing your own side is only half of what it takes to win a debate - you have to know the other side better than your own.
And for the record, I won the debate with 60% of the vote.
if Mitt Romney is elected i will punch myself in the face everyday he is President until 2016 and then i will make a debut into the national spotlight showing the country what Mitt Romney has done to my face
if Mitt Romney is elected i will punch myself in the face everyday he is President until 2016 and then i will make a debut into the national spotlight showing the country what Mitt Romney has done to my face
LADIES, you should be EXCITED because in MITT ROMNEY’S ECONOMY businesses will be SO DESPERATE for workers that they will actually HIRE WOMEN and let you GET HOME IN TIME TO COOK DINNER FOR YOUR CHILDREN
And here's the essay I had to write on the first debate for my AP Government class.
With election day drawing nearer and nearer with every sunrise and sunset, it was inevitable that President Barack Obama and Governor Romney would end up on the same stage, debating their different paths for the country in front of over 60 million viewers nationwide. What may surprise some people is that this is only the fourth time Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have met in person. The last time was in 2008, during the primary processes for both parties. A lot hinges on the debates, as the incumbent President seeks to defend his record and present his plan for the next four years, and his/her opponent seeks to criticize the incumbent’s first term and make the case for why they don’t deserve another one. In a tight race such as this one, all three of these debates will prove crucial to both campaigns, and both will seek to make the best of each.
The moderator, Bill Lehrer, failed to take control of the debate. Each candidate forced him to back down more than once, and he succumbed to sometimes blatantly disrespectful behavior from each candidate. He failed to provide a clear contrast between each candidate, and he failed to incorporate important social issues which tie into the major economic questions each candidate was asked. Although it is important to have a moderator that isn’t overbearing and allows lively debate to occur, it is also crucial to have a moderator that keeps each candidate in check and keeps the debate in focus. Some candidates’ views and positions were distorted and unclear to the American people because of how Mr. Lehrer conducted the debate.
Once again, we saw Mitt Romney’s and Barack Obama’s ideologies clash and fight on which direction the country should move in. Mitt Romney’s presentation to the American people was one of reduced government, tax cuts across the board, deregulation (but not “too much”), and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Barack Obama defended his record of the past four years, and presented a plan to the American people for the next four; higher taxes on the wealthy, further tax cuts for small business and the middle class, the defense of the Affordable Care Act, and continued regulation of Wall Street. Mr. Romney favors policies that would deregulate Wall Street because he believes that the free market works best when government does not intrude. Governor Romney did concede that he believes some regulation is necessary, but says that regulation passed by Barack Obama after he took office is overbearing and hinders economic growth rather than promotes it. This is puzzling, as it is a generally accepted concept that significant lack of regulation is what drove the economy off a cliff and into the Great Recession in 2008. Wall Street gambled with the middle class’ money practically unopposed under the same policies that Romney is proposing, and then when overextended banks and unpaid mortgages caused the economy to nosedive, the middle class taxpayer had to bail Wall Street out. Mitt Romney has essentially said that he will go back to failed policies and deregulation that cost the country and millions of working class Americans massive amounts of capital. Barack Obama regulated Wall Street when he took office to make sure that it could not do what it did in 2008 under the same Republican policies Mr. Romney is proposing. He reigned in the banks, the housing market, and multimillion dollar corporations. He placed new restrictions on what Wall Street could and could not do with other people’s money, and stabilized the free market. Mr. Obama has repeatedly said that he believes in the free market just as much as Mr. Romney does, in response to Romney statements that accuse him of destroying competition. The President has made it clear that his policies simply make the free market fairer and more accessible to the middle and lower classes, rather than the survival of the fittest approach his rival takes. In short, the President believes in government regulation and subsidies to help promote a fairer and more stable economy, while Governor Romney believes that less government intrusion and deregulation will allow competitiveness to flourish, and consequently, the economy as a whole.
It was clear from the beginning that Governor Romney seemed to have an edge on the President, as he appeared invigorated and on the offensive as Mr. Obama seemed disillusioned, tired, and lacking any type of substantiated and continued offense. Governor Romney didn’t appear as the out of touch, rambling, flip flopper many had first thought him to be. The Mitt Romney on that stage seemed to be new and enthusiastic despite several campaign obstacles he had faced in the weeks leading up to the debate. The Obama that had been on the offensive - calling out his opponent on his record, his flip flopping, and his stumbling remarks – seemed like a fairytale compared to the way he preformed. Many would be disillusioned to call Governor Romney the winner of the debate. It admittedly seemed that way, but it is forgotten that your ability to debate is based upon how much credible substance you present to your audience. Mitt Romney failed to do this. While the President lacked his usual charisma, what he lacked, he made up for in facts and stable and credible information. Mitt Romney substituted rage, irrationality, and ‘charisma’ for actual substance and information. For example, Governor Romney claimed that his healthcare plan (which he provided no specifics for rather than an immediate repeal of the Affordable Care Act) would cover pre existing conditions. This is not true in any form whatsoever. The Affordable Care Act, which Romney has vowed to repeal, covers pre existing conditions; but Mr. Romney’s plan would not. A top Romney campaign adviser even confirmed this after the debate. In addition, Mr. Romney claimed that the Affordable Care Act creates a board of “unelected officials” who would dictate what kinds of treatments people can and cannot receive. Once again, this is completely untrue. The only “board” the Affordable Care Act creates is an Independent Payment Advisory to oversee Medicare spending. It is explicitly bans the power to dictate treatment and limit procedures to anyone. It revived memories of Sarah Palin’s “death panels” statement. In another gaff about the economy, Mitt Romney made an outrageous claim – that 23 million Americans are out of work. This, once again, is not even exaggerated, it is simply untrue. 12.5 million Americans are officially unemployed, and an additional 2.6 million have stopped looking for a job. The other 8 million Romney declares as “out of work” consists of part time workers. Once again, Romney has produced a dishonest and completely untrue statistic. In regards to taxes, Mitt Romney has claimed that his tax plan (modeled on traditional Republican plans that cut taxes for the wealthy) would not cut taxes for the wealthy. Once again, this is false. He claims that he would offset his proposed tax cuts by closing loopholes in the tax code, without saying which loopholes he’d even close. However, independent tax groups have concluded that his tax cuts would actually increase taxes on the middle class in order to pay for his tax cuts on the wealthy. Once again, he has lied to the American people without flinching. Perhaps the biggest misstep of the night was his claim that his plan doesn’t have a five trillion dollar tax cut. This is the same tax plan he’s been running on ever since he began his campaign over a year ago. His across the board tax cuts would cost $360 billion dollars the first year, and at the end of ten years, would in fact grow to equal $5 trillion dollars in net loss. That cannot even be considered a mistake, only a blatant, disgusting lie. In conclusion, it may seem that Mitt Romney had the advantage for most of the night. But you need more than charisma to win a debate; you need substance and you need cold, hard facts, and you need to support them. Mitt Romney did none of this. Therefore, I am forced to designate the President as the winner of the first debate. If you can’t win using the truth, you have no right to be proclaimed as the victor based on lies.
The one thing that I would urge many people to realize and understand as a result of this debate is that you may have your own opinions, but you may not have your own facts. Mitt Romney may have outwitted and outspoken the President, but he cannot change the facts. Barack Obama made it clear that if he is elected, he will not go back to the policies that got us in trouble in the first place. He will continue to strengthen the middle class and regulate Wall Street, yet allow the free market to grow and prosper. He will continue to advocate for and defend the Affordable Care Act, which provides healthcare to millions of Americans and strengthens those who already have it. His record on job growth and reforming the government’s role in the economy will continue to stand tall against Mitt Romney’s largely unsubstantiated criticisms and lies. Mitt Romney has yet to provide specifics on much of his “plan”. Can America really afford to allow itself to deem someone who lied their way to victory a winner? The answer is no. If Governor Romney can’t be trusted in a debate, how can he be trusted in the White House?
I thought you guys might want to read my essay I wrote for my Government class on this year's election.
This November, Americans are perhaps being presented with two choices that are the most starkly different in ideology and policy than any election before. The focuses of the election will the economy, and largely, what the government’s role in the economy should be. Incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama will face off against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney from the Republican Party. However, to first understand the contrasting set of policies and beliefs set before us, we must look at and define certain economic terms and factors.
Unfortunately, many Americans are uneducated and misinformed about poverty statistics in the United States. Many Americans ignorantly assume that the poor are government leeches who seek to exploit the taxes of those who work via the form of social benefits. Although that does happen, it is arguably a small fraction of those considered ‘poor’. 10.5 million Americans are considered ‘working poor’; defined as men and women who are included in the labor force, but do not make enough money to be considered above the poverty line. Now, for the poor as a whole, government programs do support them to an extent. These programs include Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, and welfare. The government has an array of programs designed to keep people below the poverty line afloat, as well as keep people from falling below the poverty line to begin with. 22% of American children live below the poverty line, and 15% of Americans as a whole live below the poverty line. The two Presidential candidates differ on their views on how to handle the economy, how to handle the safety net, and how to best help those in need. Each offer starkly different views, presenting Americans with one of the greatest ideological rifts in decades.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is running on the Republican ticket with Congressman Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential nominee. Their platform encompasses traditional conservatives and Republican ideas: tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, deregulation of important industries and markets, and cuts in government spending almost everywhere except for defense spending (which they would actually increase). Let it be noted, as well, that the armed forces and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have made it clear that they do not require a raise in funding to fully complete and fulfill their duties and the functions of all branches of the military. Currently, most wealthy Americans pay a shocking 13-15% tax rate on their income. Most people making around the median income, the middle class, pay a 28-35% tax rate on their income. Mr. Romney’s plan is to further cut taxes for people like himself – the Americans that make millions, even billions of dollars a year. Governor Romney also claims that his plan would cut taxes for the middle class. Independent economists have concluded that his tax plan would raise taxes on the average middle class household by $2,000. The theory behind such massive tax cuts is that the more the people in the top wealth bracket have to spend and invest, the more wealth that will then trickle down into the middle class and the poor’s pockets. Not only would a Romney Administration seek to cut taxes for those who least need and raise them for those who most need a cut, it would also seek to cut government spending on social benefits and the safety net across the board. Mr. Romney and his fellow Republicans argue that government social programs do not necessarily ‘help’ the poor, that they only create government dependence. Mr. Romney has even gone so far as to state that he need not “worry about” 47% of the country because they do not pay income taxes. The 47% he speaks of are retired senior citizens who have already paid their income taxes in full, the working poor, American military veterans, and various other Americans who are waived from paying income tax. These people are waived because they simply are not considered to make enough to pay it. However, this “47%” actually pays an average of 21.8% in local, state, federal, property, and other taxes. This actually evens out to be an average of 7-9% more in taxes than the wealthiest 20% of Americans (who actually end up writing off most of their income tax via loopholes). However, Governor Romney also states that the government’s job is to celebrate and reward success, rather than “punish” it. While that is a valid statement, it must also be noted that this does not excuse the wealthiest Americans from paying their fair share in taxes. Mr. Romney fails to note that it is generally bad for the economy to have so much wealth reserved in the hands of a few. Since 1980, income inequality in the United States has skyrocketed to unprecedented heights. Trickledown economics of this sort drove the economy off a cliff in 2008 and plunged the country into what has become known as the Great Recession. In terms of the marketplace, Governor Romney believes that deregulation of Wall Street, businesses, and a competitive market is the key to prosperity. Again, this is unfortunately what caused the Great Recession. Banks, companies, corporations, and Wall Street as a whole was allowed to gamble with other people’s – the middle classes’ – money, almost unchecked. They overextended themselves, and, without government regulation, went bankrupt in many cases. A bailout package had to be hastily assembled in order to prevent an economic collapse. Essentially, Mr. Romney believes that policies that caused the economic mess in the first place are the policies that will help it rebound. In response to the devastating news that the American auto industry was on the verge of self implosion, Governor Romney’s reaction was to, and I quote, “let Detroit go bankrupt” and that he believes “the free market should take its course”. The auto industry compromises around 1.1 million American jobs. Mitt Romney, the economic expert, publicly stated that as President, he would’ve stood by and done nothing as one of the largest sectors of the U.S. economy shriveled up and died. Unfortunately, Governor Romney’s plan of massive government spending cuts, massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and tremendous deregulation of the marketplace is a plan that has been tested before. George Bush ran on, and implemented, these very same policies. This led to the worst economic downturn in American history, and plunged the economy into uncertainty and put it on the verge of the second Great Depression. Mitt Romney has made his intentions clear to the American people and it is up to them to decipher what they really have in store for them and the direction of the country.
The man Mitt Romney opposes in this election is the current sitting Democratic President, Barack Hussein Obama. In terms of the economy, Barack Obama’s policies have been straightforward and clear. He believes that the wealthiest Americans must pay their fair share, the middle class must be secure and stable, Wall Street must be kept in check but allowed to compete and prosper, the government should spur economic growth via investing in infrastructure, energy, and a fair marketplace. When the President took office, he was presented with an economy that was on the verge of total collapse. Perhaps no President had faced such a crisis since FDR and the Great Depression. Nevertheless, the President has managed to do a number of things. He lowered taxes for 95% of Americans, bringing taxes to their lowest point ever, and giving a break to millions of struggling American families. The Recovery Act did this and at the same time, put millions back to work. The President also ‘bailed out’ the American auto industry, and refused to let one million American jobs vanish. The bailout worked, and most auto companies paid back their debts to the government ahead of schedule. The bailout, considered huge government intervention in American politics, worked, plain and simple. Since taking office, the President has signed 15+ small business tax cuts into law, providing for a staggering statistic after months of job shedding. As of today, under President Obama, 4.6 million private sector jobs have been created. Not only this, but the President has provided business with tax cuts if they hire unemployed people. Among an array of other things, the President did what many of his critics predicted he could not do; he turned the economy around almost 360 degrees and took us from recession to recovery. Thanks to President Obama, U.S. manufacturing has seen its first growth since 1997. Wall Street can no longer gamble away people’s money, and consumers are protected with new regulations and the Consumer Protection Agency (FTC Bureau). For the very first time in decades, American businesses are finding it more profitable to actually stay here and create jobs here rather than abroad. The President has admitted that the recovery is not as strong as many had hoped, but he is quick to point out that yes, we are better off than we were four years ago. The President claims that the country is headed in the right direction, and although it may not be as fast as many had hoped, it is still moving. His opponent, running on failed policies, claims that the recovery has not been fast enough. The President has also extended unemployment benefits in the midst of the economic crisis, realizing that the safety net is a necessity for the worst off Americans. He believes that working to build a strong middle class is the path to prosperity. He believes that a middle class that has more money to spend and invest in the market and economy, the greater the economy will benefit rather than if a few of the wealthiest Americans are the ones who do the ‘investing’. On a broader scale, the President believes that if the government takes an active role in the economy to ensure fairness and prosperity for all Americans, the country and economy will benefit as a whole. The President also believes that the safety net is essential to the country’s moral and economic standing. Propping up the poorer classes provides them with a greater chance for mobility up through the economic classes and wealth brackets. He believes that when more people have more money to spend, it benefits the entire economy. His perspective and his plan provides for an obvious and stark contrast to that of Governor Romney’s plan and policies, and Americans will have to decide if the President, his accomplishments, his faults, and his plan deserve another four years or not.
As it is too many Americans, this election is an extremely important. I do believe that this election clearly presents itself not only as the choice between two paths for the next four years, but perhaps the next few generations to come. On one hand, you have the Republicans and Mitt Romney, who are advocating for deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, trickledown economics, and spending cuts to the programs we need most. On the other, you have the Democrats and President Obama who are proposing further economic recovery via government intervention, regulation, tax increases on the wealthy to their deserved rate, and a budget balanced with investment as well as spending cuts. Mitt Romney’s policies are the policies that drove the country into the ground in the first place. Independent economists agree that massive deregulation, tax cuts for the wealth, and trickledown economics as a whole caused the Great Recession. Mitt Romney is running on those same policies. He believes that giving tax breaks to the top will cause the money they save to be invested in the economy, and as a result, everyone will benefit, even if he raises taxes on the middle class. It doesn’t work. An economy built to last does not start from the top down, but rather from the middle out. People accuse the President of redistribution and of punishing the wealthy for success simply because he wants them to pay their fair share in taxes. Unfortunately, what many Americans don’t hear about is the real redistribution that occurs. Tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations are funded for by the middle class and the poor. The people who need those same tax breaks are the ones being pushed down. Many Americans are fooled into thinking that redistribution can only occur from rich to poor, when it is occurring right now; only it is from poor to rich. When Wall Street is allowed to do as it pleases, it exploits the middle class and exploits the government’s lack of attention and regulation. Its recklessness drove the economy off a cliff and then had the nerve to ask for bailouts funded by the people with whose money they had played with in the first place. George Bush’s policies, practically identical to Mitt Romney’s, exploded the national deficit and ruined the economy. I believe that as a country, we cannot and should not allow this man to be elected. I believe that this election is it – our chance to choose a path forward, rather than backwards. Trickledown economics have been tried over and over and over, and each time, they have more or less failed. Investing in the middle class, in job creation in the United States, in consumer protection, in American industry and manufacturing, having the wealthy pay their fair share, in providing a safety net for those who most need our help, and providing those at the bottom and even in the middle with a ladder up to the top benefits not only the middle class and the poor, but those at the top too. I believe that a strong and secure middle class with, simply put, more money to spend and invest into the economy, the better off the country as a whole is. I reject the idea that tax cuts for those at the top who already pay significantly less than those in the middle will spur economic growth. I reject the idea that government deregulation of the marketplace and Wall Street will spur anything but greed and exploitation of the middle class yet again. I reject the idea that cutting the safety net will somehow provide the poor with a ladder up to the middle class. I reject the idea that implementing failed policies for a second, even third time, will make them work this time around. I endorse the idea that fairness and competition, and a strong middle class is the answer. I endorse the idea that government investment to spur economic growth in small businesses, large businesses, and American infrastructure are beneficial not only to the middle class, but to all Americans. For this and all other reasons stated before and above this, I side and stand with President Barack Obama. His accomplishments, his policies, and his plans are what are right for the country. The economic recovery has been slow, but people forget this: we are creating jobs, we are creating growth, and we are building an economy built to last. We are better off than we were four years ago. We cannot go back to the failed policies of the past, no matter how they are presented to us. We must go forward.