Because I had less than I needed, I fight the impulse to give them everything they want.
Finally! The real Mitt Romney, not the glossy PR portrait, has emerged. The look and manner is as familiar as it is offensive. It's corporate America's "I'll get you for that/you're toast" look.
Fox executives think stripping workers of their livelihoods is a creative and entertaining idea. In reality it is another sign that workers need their voices heard in the struggle to maintain their dignity.
America's children could have smaller class sizes. Cities and towns could have more police. Roads and bridges would be repaired and rebuilt. The foundation for a new economy could begin to be cobbled together.
We have our share of myths in politics. One that is particularly seductive in this rough economy is that the Republican Party is pro-business, and hence the party of wealth creation.
Billy Koehler died on March 7, 2009, for lack of health insurance. Mitt Romney said on October 10, 2012, that's impossible.
Maybe Romney only admitted his mistake because he had a little extra political capital to spend after his successful debate. Or maybe he just did it because it was the right thing to do. Smart business people admit their mistakes immediately.
The lights are being removed, the podiums are gone, and the cleanup crew is sweeping up the tiny, tiny pieces of Paul Ryan that were left all over the stage last night. Heh. Well, maybe not really, but it certainly seems that way, doesn't it?
While it is true that some individuals do overcome great odds to earn large paychecks, it does not follow that the majority of people in this country who do not have great wealth are any less caring or responsible human beings.
We may debate civilly and settle our differences in the voting booth, but is it possible that physical prowess still shapes our positions on this fundamental social issue?
We know that politicians are prone to promises, and to pie fights over said promises. So, let's go to the videotape, shall we?
What matters more? What Romney said, or what Obama didn't? ...
The president should make clear that our exceptionalism is not how wealthy the few become, but how much prosperity is created and shared by the many, and the fairness and justice and decency we stand for.
It is mostly likely that Tony Abbott, the Australian opposition leader, would have probably made Mr. Romney pay much more dearly for his miserable "47 percent" comment than Mr. Obama did.
We undermine the basic concept of 'one-citizen one-vote' with the Electoral College, an idea that may have seemed like a good idea in 1789 but has not been emulated by other countries for countless reasons.
Just days before it became public that U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney had criticized 47 percent of Americans as being "dependent on the government," an Emory Law professor espoused the important role a society should play in helping its citizens build resilience.