ROMNEY - BACK TO THE ECONOMY

Romney is back to campaigning on the economy, as well he should be, since he has revealed himself as lacking even minimum skills in handling a foreign affairs crisis.  The Republican candidate stepped in it when he ventured into pontificating on foreign policy.  I ask you: Would you want this man at the helm of the ship of state in the midst of a violent storm?

The economy shows signs of slow improvement as evidenced by the soaring stock market yesterday, which is still on the rise today.  Romney and the major players in his campaign contributions are richer, which should be some consolation for them, though not particularly good news for the campaign.  It's not easy to run against an improving economy.

Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.

But how does he define "middle-income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it Friday as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.

Really?  Folks I know with incomes at and above $200,000 appear pretty damned well-to-do to me. 

The picture shows Romney waving good-bye.  (I hope; I hope!) 

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Don't fail to read Counterlight's post titled "On the L Train".  Something's very wrong for so very many in the US today.  Far too many people amongst those who managed to hang on to their jobs work hard and still struggle from paycheck to paycheck to cover their expenses.  That's not to even mention the plight of those who lost their jobs.  Is this the American dream?

As I was pressed against a door on a crowded L train going into Manhattan one morning recently, a young well dressed couple within inches of me began discussing their rent, how to pay it this month, if they could get away with paying just part of it, what groceries they could do without to make the rent. They certainly did not look the part of poor struggling tenants. They looked like low level office professionals of some kind, maybe hipsters on the weekends. They were both on their way to work with their ID badges on. And yet they were talking about doing without to make the rent.

There are so many things wrong with this picture, I thought. Why should anyone who's employed have to worry about paying the rent? Why should 2 employed people worry about paying rent? Why are they, and all the rest of us, pressed together like cattle on the way to a slaughterhouse on a train that runs unreliably at best?