AMERICA'S TWO TALES, 2.

Which one is correct.

It seemed so hard for Americans to listen; and even the media, which should know better, because they invariably have all the facts to clarify the unemployment situation and job creation that the Department of Labor has to put out at the beginning of each month.

They (unemployment and job creation) did not happen by themselves, and that there were outside influences that controlled them; but that was beside the point.

However, the two parties had two different stories about, for example, the 84,000 jobs that were created in June, with President Barack Obama saying that "...it was a step in the right direction,"; while his opponent Mitt Romney for the Republican Party was lamenting the low figure as "...very disappointing,"

Yet, if people were listening good to Obama, he was saying that his original economic plan was to change the system that has brought the nation to the financial crisis that his administration was dealing with. A system that has failed in more ways than one over several decades, and resulting in one recession after another.

That (system) was archaic, and that a new foundation was in place to make sure that the economy was dealt with effectively. It has to start working its way up from the bottom, by giving the middle class and working people the incentives they needed to move it (economy) forward.

That plan was in its development stage(s), and it would take more than just a few years to see the result that it could produce. Prosperity will begin from the middle and spread out to the fringes of society and make all sections (of society) to become inclusive. It (prosperity) would come in the form of good jobs and high paying wages and salaries.

The alternate option being pushed by Mitt Romney and the Republicans was another plan, which was the repeat of the old "trickle down economy", with economic gains starting at the top and raining down on the majority of citizens. The outcome of that was abysmal.

However, that has been the country's problem; that if America went back to the old system, of tax cuts and breaks for only the so called "job creators", and the restrictions on capital gains, as well as on investments of corporations, whose main aim was to double their ROI (return on investment) were removed, the economic situation would never change.

The economic climate would continue to be bad; and only the top echelon of society would benefit from the "blood, sweat and tears" of the middle class and workers, such as those in the construction and maritime industries, law enforcement and firefighting personnel, men and women in the manufacturing sector, etc., etc.; all would be working for peanuts to subsidize the wealthy and a small number of executives in high places.

That was where the "1% versus 99% characterization of society came from; an environment, which has prompted a backlash of men and women of all ages to come out against the big financial houses, oil moguls and industrial magnates, and culminating in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

Mitt Romney and his kind specialized in the second scenario, of the wealthy having it all at the expense of the disadvantaged. They wanted the control of the economy in the hands of the elitists.

For example, they would return to insensitive insurance executives, who have made health insurance a privilege, by jacking up insurance premiums and making only the rich to be able to afford quality health care.

The Affordable Care Act by Obama and the Democrats has been a big blow to those officials that were running the health care industry. They have lost the control that they had on the people from which they were accruing their insane fortune; the sick, the elderly, and the poor.

They wanted that power back through Mitt Romney and the Republican Party; hence, the stern advocacy of repealing the Act.

That was what the media should be telling Americans. They also should be making them aware of the fact that oil platforms along the beautiful shores and in National parks were health hazards; and though, gas would be plentiful and cheaper, and jobs would be created by those projects, the health of the people could also be affected in several negative ways. The prevention of that should be the uppermost priority of the government.

What would profit Americans, if the Keystone oil pipeline polluted the underground water that the people use for drinking and cooking purposes? Who must be protected; the oil companies and producers or the inhabitants along the pipeline?.

Money was pouring into the coffers of the Republican Party, with the super PACs leading the way to get millionaires and billionaires to make huge contributions to the party in support of Romney's campaign, but all that would not be against Obama winning a second term.

It would help the wealthy to maintain the "status quo" of high unemployment and a crummy economy, year after year, with them wielding more power over their fellow Americans. They have the U.S. Congressional Republican majority helping them to do just that.

While Obama was talking about a new plan to make things better in the future for the middle class and their families, Romney was thinking about the "rich getting richer, and the poor, poorer."

Obama has had his shortcomings, but he has always had the majority of the people in mind; while Romney..., well, you should know what was at the back of his mind, and that was nothing, but "Money, Money, Money" for himself and his followers.

The media could not bite the finger that fed them, as the industry depended on the advertisement companies for all their revenue. However, advertisement organizations were somehow pro-Republican; but what they (media) should do, at least, was to balance their stories instead of tilting them in favor of only the Republicans.

Comments 1 comment

American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

Romney having it all at the expense of the wealthy having it all???? The wealthy are STILL wealthy? Meaning they have money in the bank and overseas. Once you become super wealthy it is hard to lose. What does this mean? It means the wealthy do not get richer off the backs of the poor. The true meaning is they get richer by creating products, services etc. Normaly they cannot do this without hiring employees! In a nutshell when the rich get richer they put people to work and that is how the middle class is created. Off the backs is a horrible description. It should be worded the poor are given the PRIVLIDGE of JOBS! ..........thank you

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working