Dreaming of Romney

I don't usually put alot of stock in my dreams, as I feel they are just alot of random, stored information processing itself IMO; BUT this dream made me pause to think, and gave me an insight on what could be happening as being one of the biggest political scandals of our time.

I dreamed that Mitt Romney won the presidential election.

Well, needless to say, as a Ron Paul supporter, I was not a happy camper. But it had me thinking... With most of the minority and democratic vote going toward Obama, and the IMO republican vote going towards RP, my suspicions would seen justified, if Romney does indeed win the election. I would be hard pressed not to say that, yes indeed, I feel that the votes are rigged for whoever the big companies throw their dollars at, and that just like most of all our so called "freedoms" the right to vote in our presidential choice has been stripped from the people and given to corporate America, just like so many other rights have seemed to be swept under the carpet and trod upon, more and more, as the contribution of wealth continues to widen in favor of the few.

Just my thoughts, and this dream has shown me the Face of what is to come through my own subconscious realization of our descent into an even more obvious puppet government than we've ever seen before.

I'm not putting this out there as fact, or claiming myself to have prophetic visions, as I don't really believe in those things, no offense intended to those who do. Like I said, this just seems to be the logical conclusion in my own subconscious, rising to the surface.

Thanks for reading, and please everyone, keep this in mind and see the truth, even if the whole world believes a lie.

I welcome any replies or other insights. Thanks again for your time for reading this, and considering these words.

Originally posted by Amarri
I dreamed that Mitt Romney won the presidential election.

I really doubt that's going to happen. All the state-polls indicate Obama way ahead.
Romney would have to get Florida and Ohio to swing his way. I just don't see it ...

reply to post by FlyersFan


I'll take the other side of the coin.

reply to post by Amarri


Taking it from someone outside the US, in the North...with no political favoritism of America.

In Canada, according to news papers, Obama has a the lead, they don;t even mention Romney much, i would be surprised if i see Romney's name more than once a week.

I think its already decided who the winner is, and i think its Obama.

reply to post by RELDDIR


Yes, exactly. That is why I would feel that if the last minute he wins, it would be quite questionable.

Let's do the world a favor and spread the word for everybody to write in Sponge Bob Squarepants on their ballots. Don't see how a fictional cartoon character can do any worse than either one of the un-animated Bozos that are up for election!

Besides, being pro-active could stop the horrible nightmares you're having now.

It could happen. The race is very tight. All it would take is some very bad news just 1 or 2 weeks before the election (a terrorism incident would be ideal, false flag or otherwise) and Romney is our next president.

I really do worry about the damage a republican steamroller could do to America (steamroller = president, house majority and Senate majority all from the same party).

But I have to say, while I, personally, will be fine in retirement whether Social Security exists or not, many of the people who are REALLY going to need it are voting for candidates who are trying to get rid of it. It's their own fault if old age, for them, really sucks and they have to work into their 70s, 80s, maybe even 90s if they live that long. I hope the younger generation is listening, because many of you screwed yourselves by voting for the people you voted for. Their vision of America is that the rich should make more, and the poor and middle class should work more and get less. That's going to save the country.

As part of Generation X, I'd rather solve the budget woes now than have to pay later for the previous generations entitlement programs. Just my two cents.

Originally posted by ClintK
It could happen. The race is very tight. All it would take is some very bad news just 1 or 2 weeks before the election (a terrorism incident would be ideal, false flag or otherwise) and Romney is our next president.

I really do worry about the damage a republican steamroller could do to America (steamroller = president, house majority and Senate majority all from the same party).

But I have to say, while I, personally, will be fine in retirement whether Social Security exists or not, many of the people who are REALLY going to need it are voting for candidates who are trying to get rid of it. It's their own fault if old age, for them, really sucks and they have to work into their 70s, 80s, maybe even 90s if they live that long. I hope the younger generation is listening, because many of you screwed yourselves by voting for the people you voted for. Their vision of America is that the rich should make more, and the poor and middle class should work more and get less. That's going to save the country.

reply to post by ClintK


I hope you're not implying younger voters are selfish. We are paying or will be paying for the previous generations' entitlement programs, yet we might not have any to live off of ourselves. Just another two cents.

Originally posted by RELDDIR
reply to post by ClintK

 

I hope you're not implying younger voters are selfish. We are paying or will be paying for the previous generations' entitlement programs, yet we might not have any to live off of ourselves. Just another two cents.

You're right, RELDDIR, but here's the problem. Older people, like me (late 50s) paid into SS and Medicare ALL OUR LIVES. In 1983, because of the Greenspan Commission, we started paying an extra 1 percent for every dollar we made (.5 percent from our paychecks, .5 percent from our employers) in to our FICA accounts for a total of 13 percent for every dollar we made (previously it had been 12 percent). The extra $$ would cause a surplus in Social Security that would build up over the next 25 years so that when the baby boom generation retired the needed extra money was there.

Great plan. But there was a problem. Rather than leaving the surplus alone and letting it build up, the surplus was spent, mostly to support tax cuts. The people who complained about this being being bad judgment (I was one) were ridiculed as being alarmists. We were told that the money was being replaced with T-bills, which were "the most reliable security in the world." We were held up to the rest of America as being stupid and not really understanding the issue because what was happening was simply NOT a problem.

Unfortunately, most people believed it. It was obvious to anyone with a brain that the American people were being misled -- we were definitely going to have to pay off that borrowed money. But, frankly, a lot of Americans don't have a brain.

Al Gore was going to stop it if he became President, but even he got ridiculed because he said he was going to put the surplus in a "lock box." So there was a lot of ridicule and derision and satire about the "lock box." But then, because the idea was catching on after the initial derision by conservative pundits, Bush made a similar promise. He immediately broke it with his first budget, then even laughed at the idea when he started pushing to privatize social security.

So the money kept getting taken out of the Social Security surplus.

Until Obama. By 2009, there was no more surplus. Just trillions of dollars in debt from the previous budgets that had "borrowed" (or perhaps a better word is stolen) from the surplus. It is worth mentioning that there was one year that nothing was taken from the surplus under Clinton.

Anyway, now they have to start paying that money back. If they had left the surplus alone, we wouldn't have this problem. But in defense of my generation, I have to say we were sold the tax cut idea like there was no cost at all. Just freeloaders getting cut from the welfare rolls. And, as I mentioned, people who expressed alarm that the surplus was being spent were ridiculed as being dumb and not understanding the issue.

We did, of course, understand the issue, but we were a minority.

I'm sorry this had to fall on your generation. It is a symptom of a dysfunctional political system. But it is also a symptom of an intellectually lazy American public that doesn't understand basic arithmetic. And won't try to. And a news media entirely focused on clicks, circulation and ratings. They really didn't cover this story until recently.

I wanted to add (because you are being lied to as well by people who want to destroy SS) it is IMPOSSIBLE that you won't have anything from SS when you retire. As long as working people are paying into the FICA account (a deduction from your paycheck) there will definitely be money there. It may not be as much money as I'll get, percentage -wise, but it could be MORE. It all depends on who your generation elects to office.

My advice: don't vote for right wingers or Republicans. They hate social security and have been working to destroy it since its inception.

reply to post by ClintK

You have made some excellent points!

My Dad (who just retired last year) and I were just discussing this earlier today. You are not the only one that thought the government borrowing from Social Security was a rotten idea. When they first mentioned it on the news at the time my Dad called me flying off the handle he was so mad! He said "You know them crooks ain't ever gonna pay it back!"

Well here we are many years later. Have they paid it back? No! Will they pay it back? That remains to be seen- but probably not in Dad's lifetime; maybe not in mine either.

reply to post by ClintK


My simple question is just this: Why selfishly unload your generations' debt into the future? Please use the CPI (Consumer Price Index) to make your arguement. Am I suppose to give up home ownership just to finance the debt from the previous generation? I understand your logic is self-justified.

An Excerpt from Wikipedia's United States Consumer Price Index
The hidden change in prices of housingIn January 1983 housing prices were replaced with owners' equivalent of rent because rents are more stable. [3] Because house prices rose and fell more than rents during the housing bubble and crash, housing's effects on inflation and deflation are not reflected in the CPI.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by RELDDIR
reply to post by ClintK

 

My simple question is just this: Why selfishly unload your generations' debt into the future? Please use the CPI (Consumer Price Index) to make your arguement. Am I suppose to give up home ownership just to finance the debt from the previous generation? I understand your logic is self-justified.

An Excerpt from Wikipedia's United States Consumer Price Index
The hidden change in prices of housingIn January 1983 housing prices were replaced with owners' equivalent of rent because rents are more stable. [3] Because house prices rose and fell more than rents during the housing bubble and crash, housing's effects on inflation and deflation are not reflected in the CPI.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying what the U.S. should do is simply deny people my age their Social Security benefits, even though it has been deducted from our paychecks all of our lives? Because it really sounds like that's what you are saying.

reply to post by ClintK


Maybe something like hurricane Sandy? Does seem strange you had said that lol!