The Real Mitt Romney

[Ibby]

the real mitt romney: Disaster Relief is immoral.

KING: What else, Governor Romney? You’ve been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I’ve been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it’s the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.

Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut—we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do? And those things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot…

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot—we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all. [emphasis added]

yup. You're reading that right. Disaster relief is immoral because deficits.

Helping Americans devastated by storms, or earthquakes, or fires, who have had their whole lives, their houses, their things, their livelihoods washed away or blown away or burnt to ashes or whatever, get a leg up and start the long, slow process of recovery, is immoral because deficits.

That there's some plain-and-simple ayn-rand-ron-paul insanity. Then again, no surprise, from the party in favor of letting sick folks just die.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Ibby

Disaster relief is immoral because deficits.

Helping Americans devastated by storms, or earthquakes, or fires, who have had their whole lives, their houses, their things, their livelihoods washed away or blown away or burnt to ashes or whatever, get a leg up and start the long, slow process of recovery, is immoral because deficits.

The deficits will destroy us far far worse than any natural disaster in our history, if we don't stop them. You have no idea of how bad it gets when you have a real monetary crisis in a country.

In any budget, you can point out SOMETHING that appears cruel. Any budget. In fact, when Obama was asked about something similar in regards to Obamacare, he said "maybe you just send some folk home with a pain pill or something. Not everyone needs an operation." (the operation was an expensive one).

Romney is correct however - the federal gov't can't afford to be a replacement for insurance on your home. Why should it be? That's why we have insurance companies, and I don't know anyone who doesn't have insurance on their home. Maybe a few Democrats don't, but they're always hard to figure out. Paying for the National Guard to be brought in is fine, but paying people for their losses - no. The federal gov't is NOT our insurance company. Which is good, because the fed's could never run as efficiently as any insurance company.

The help that you are appealing for, should come from the State, but most immediately, from the nearby and affected communities, friends, and various charity groups like the Red Cross, etc. Katrina is a lesson in this. The people went to the Superbowl for shelter, expecting the gov't to take care of them. But the gov't had told them to bring their own provisions, etc. Many did not however. So the Superbowl was completely overwhelmed, both in numbers, and in what they needed. They simply weren't set up to handle THAT many people.

And it took days for FEMA to get even bottled water in to those inside.

This last hurricane that hit New Orleans, the city was clear - The Superbowl is CLOSED, and no one will be admitted. So what happened? The people made their own arrangements, and everything worked out much better. Of course, there was much less flooding, but the idea is that YOU are the one responsible for your own safety, and YOU will do a LOT better job than some FEMA director in Washington can do for you. (The director's previous job was as an officer in an Arabian horse club, btw Oh! I hate Crony Politicians!)

Do you REALLY want to put your safety in the hands of these nitwits? Why? Please discuss!

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

The deficits will destroy us far far worse than any natural disaster in our history, if we don't stop them. You have no idea of how bad it gets when you have a real monetary crisis in a country.

... like runaway spending on more military might that we do not need?

As Commander-in-Chief, Mitt Romney will keep faith with the men and women who defend us just as he will ensure that our military capabilities are matched to the interests we need to protect. He will put our Navy on the path to increase its shipbuilding rate from nine per year to approximately fifteen per year, which will include three submarines per year. He will also modernize and replace the aging inventories of the Air Force, Army, and Marines, and selectively strengthen our force structure. And he will fully commit to a robust, multi-layered national ballistic-missile defense system to deter and defend against nuclear attacks on our homeland and our allies.

This will not be a cost-free process. We cannot rebuild our military strength without paying for it. Mitt Romney will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts and return to the budget baseline established by Secretary Robert Gates in 2010, with the goal of setting core defense spending—meaning funds devoted to the fundamental military components of personnel, operations and maintenance, procurement, and research and development—at a floor of 4 percent of GDP.

Ridiculous.

He contradicts himself in his first sentence saying that he'll match our military to our interests. But his whole plan is to make sure this all happens above a *FLOOR* (his italics, not mine) of 4% of GDP. If all you have are military dollars, everything looks like a military threat. He doesn't say how he will pay for it, what with reducing everyone's taxes, dramatically increasing our defense budget, typical Romney, say anything that will stampede the voters, facts be damned.

Originally Posted by Adak

In any budget, you can point out SOMETHING that appears cruel. Any budget. In fact, when Obama was asked about something similar in regards to Obamacare, he said "maybe you just send some folk home with a pain pill or something. Not everyone needs an operation." (the operation was an expensive one).

Jesus, you are obdurate. Please provide a citation for this. (ps, I'm just gonna ask nicely this once, and if you don't give a cite, I'm going to chalk this up to more defamation by you.)

Originally Posted by Adak

Romney is correct however - the federal gov't can't afford to be a replacement for insurance on your home. Why should it be? That's why we have insurance companies, and I don't know anyone who doesn't have insurance on their home. Maybe a few Democrats don't, but they're always hard to figure out. Paying for the National Guard to be brought in is fine, but paying people for their losses - no. The federal gov't is NOT our insurance company. Which is good, because the fed's could never run as efficiently as any insurance company.

I agree with you, the federal government can't afford to be a replacement for insurance on your home.

But no one is suggesting that. You are melodramatically exaggerating the role of FEMA.

Originally Posted by Adak

The help that you are appealing for, should come from the State, but most immediately, from the nearby and affected communities, friends, and various charity groups like the Red Cross, etc. Katrina is a lesson in this. The people went to the Superbowl for shelter, expecting the gov't to take care of them. But the gov't had told them to bring their own provisions, etc. Many did not however. So the Superbowl was completely overwhelmed, both in numbers, and in what they needed. They simply weren't set up to handle THAT many people.

Money from the state, collected in the state, distributed to the state? No interstate/federal help?

Originally Posted by Adak

And it took days for FEMA to get even bottled water in to those inside.

This last hurricane that hit New Orleans, the city was clear - The Superbowl is CLOSED, and no one will be admitted. So what happened? The people made their own arrangements, and everything worked out much better. Of course, there was much less flooding, but the idea is that YOU are the one responsible for your own safety, and YOU will do a LOT better job than some FEMA director in Washington can do for you. (The director's previous job was as an officer in an Arabian horse club, btw Oh! I hate Crony Politicians!)

Do you REALLY want to put your safety in the hands of these nitwits? Why? Please discuss!

My god, you sound like Romney, that you believe that people, some 47% of us, won't take responsibility for our lives, that we, some 47% of us, believe it is the federal government's responsibility to take care of us in every way, including our safety. Unbelievable.

Yet.

You would blindly put our national safety in the hands of the same "nitwits", with an even bigger military budget. Gotcha. I doubt you can explain that one away, but you probably meant to say something else.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

... like runaway spending on more military might that we do not need?

He contradicts himself in his first sentence saying that he'll match our military to our interests. But his whole plan is to make sure this all happens above a *FLOOR* (his italics, not mine) of 4% of GDP. If all you have are military dollars, everything looks like a military threat. He doesn't say how he will pay for it, what with reducing everyone's taxes, dramatically increasing our defense budget, typical Romney, say anything that will stampede the voters.

Does Obama say how he's going to pay for Obama care? Nooooo!
That's what lying politicians do - get over it.

Jesus, you are obdurate. Please provide a citation for this. (ps, I'm just gonna ask nicely this once, and if you don't give a cite, I'm going to chalk this up to more defamation by you.)

I don't have a cite for you. It's been played a few times on the conservative radio talk shows. The announcer/host said where and when, but I didn't write it down. It came up when Obama care was about to be voted on, so it was some time back.

I agree with you, the federal government can't afford to be a replacement for insurance on your home.

But no one is suggesting that. You are melodramatically exaggerating the role of FEMA.

Oh, am I? What were all those trailers about after Katrina, then?

You and I both know that the reason those buildings in New Orleans couldn't be rebuilt quickly, was because they either had no flood insurance, or if they were rebuilt, their new flood insurance rates would be higher (probably too high), or unavailable.

Think about it. The City of New Orleans is built on washed down dirt from the Mississippi River. As the dirt compacts, the city sinks about just a bit, every year. In addition, a large part of N.O. is in a bowl depression, close to sea level.

In other words, the city is doomed - it will sink into the Gulf, inexorably. Clearly, they need to build a New New Orleans, back on solid ground, asap. Did you notice that another part of N.O. did receive 12 ft. of flood waters, in their last Hurricane? (Not Sandy). The sea wall and etc., doesn't protect the whole city, even when it works.

We don't need FEMA to think, and we need to start using our own resources to mitigate these disasters ourselves. THEN FEMA and Red Cross and other groups, can assist. ASSIST, not be expected to rescue our butts.

My god, you sound like Romney, that you believe that people, some 47% of us, won't take responsibility for our lives, that we, some 47% of us, believe it is the federal government's responsibility to take care of us in every way, including our safety. Unbelievable.

Watch the interviews done with the Katrina survivors that were inside the Superbowl in New Orleans. Every one of them relied on the gov't for help - and most of them relied on the gov't for everything - even though they were told to bring their own supplies, explicitly and repeatedly.

You would blindly put our national safety in the hands of the same "nitwits", with an even bigger military budget. Gotcha. I doubt you can explain that one away, but you probably meant to say something else.

I am not sure that we need a bigger military budget. I just don't want the Navy ships budget cut any more. As far as the "nitwits" in charge of our national safety - no, the military doesn't allow the Crony Appointments that Presidents are so famous for (like BROWN at FEMA, or Janet Reno as Attorney General).

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

I don't have a cite for you. It's been played a few times on the conservative radio talk shows. The announcer/host said where and when, but I didn't write it down. It came up when Obama care was about to be voted on, so it was some time back.

And you automatically believed it because it validated your preconceived notions. That's very conservative of you.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

And you automatically believed it because it validated your preconceived notions. That's very conservative of you.

I recognize Obama's voice when I hear it - high fidelity stereo speakers.

I don't have a problem with a limit to the nationalized health service. I understand that you only should get back, what the system can afford to give. What bugs me about Obama care, is that he's lying about the cost, and underfunding it. That means the taxpayers are going to be left with the bill when it comes due - ie., more taxes, AND the quality of the care will have to be somewhat curtailed - which he's not really telling anyone now that Obama care has become so disliked.

I'm waiting for the first 68 year old man who can't get a heart by-pass, because he's too old, etc. Then we'll see how this Obama care REALLY works (or doesn't).


It's smart to keep your mouth shut about an unpopular topic, when you're in a tight reelection campaign. I understand why he's not talking about it, anymore. I wouldn't either, if I were him.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

I recognize Obama's voice when I hear it - high fidelity stereo speakers.

I don't have a problem with a limit to the nationalized health service. I understand that you only should get back, what the system can afford to give. What bugs me about Obama care, is that he's lying about the cost, and underfunding it. That means the taxpayers are going to be left with the bill when it comes due - ie., more taxes, AND the quality of the care will have to be somewhat curtailed - which he's not really telling anyone now that Obama care has become so disliked.

--snip

So Obama is a liar and a cheat because of his projections about Obamacare.

But when it comes to Romney's plans, you

Originally Posted by Adak

I don't want to quote arithmetic, because it's not a 1+1 kind of thing, when you work with the economy and the tax rates and loopholes.

--snip--

I know Paul Ryan's monetary budget plan was published, but I haven't read Romney's proposed tax plan yet. I read what he was going to do, in broad strokes, and I know it will help.

--snip--

When all the details are published, (in a bill), then we can look at the numbers, and see what does, and doesn't probably, add up. I expect Romney's numbers to be optimistic because:

1) Europe is still in an economic recession. Greece, Spain, Italy and others, are in very serious shape.

2) China's economy has been slowing down, lately.

If these two big external factors remain (and I believe #1 certainly will, and #2 will NOT stay), then I believe Romney's projections will be off. We do a lot of business with Europe, and have banking ties which directly support their banks. If they go down, we will be bailing them out, yet again.

Obama is a hammered by you for optimistic projections, but Romney is just saying it's morning in America.

Your indefensible double standard is showing.

Originally Posted by Adak

Projections are used all the time for budgeting purposes. It has nothing to do with Bruce's snarky attitude, above. Gotta hate them rich guys, eh Bruce? Some are optimistic, some are pessimistic, with the former being much more common.

Nation-wide economic projections are seldom spot on, because the economy is so complex and variable in the controlling factors, at any given period.

--snip--

*From KNX 1070 News Radio, Los Angeles, a CBS affiliate.

Don't get angry with Obama about economic projections. Gov't and business has been using them since - roughly -- forever. ALL budgets are based on projections. Are those projections reasonable? Define "reasonable".

Originally Posted by Adak

@BigV:

Don't get angry with me about economic projections. Gov't and business has been using them since - roughly -- forever.--snip

Anyway, ALL budgets are based on projections. Are those projections reasonable?

Define "reasonable". Because they may prove to be too optimistic (typically), but sometimes they prove to be too pessimistic.

Originally Posted by Adak

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in these projections. --snip

Unless it's Obama's prediction. Then, different story.


more double standard follows.

Originally Posted by Adak

I haven't spent a lot of time with the details, because --snip--

Romney's projected savings are just that - a projection, and I wouldn't be surprised if that projection was - like all economic projections - not perfect. The bottom line is, Romney's plan will cut spending in the federal gov't, cut taxes somewhat, and close some tax loopholes. His goal is to make it "neutral", so the income lost in one cut, will be matched by growth in the economy, and by closing a loophole.

I do not expect it will be exactly neutral, of course. He's smart, but he's not a Prophet.

It's double standards like this that make you and your guy look bad. For thinking people, who like to see the math and are skeptical, "logic" like this is a big red flag. In my opinion, it is characteristic of intellectual laziness. You hear something you like or something from someone you like, and you accept it uncritically. Conversely, when the speaker is disliked, or the statement is at odds with your pre-existing conclusion, you're hostile to the message. Content matters Adak, for me and for you, even if you don't care about it. It is content that will affect our lives. You would do well to measure the content more closely and the label of the speaker less closely.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

I recognize Obama's voice when I hear it - high fidelity stereo speakers.

Those hi-fi speakers also give you a good earful of the hosts on those shows, which is why you're so misinformed.