## Mitt Romney's candidacy

 Quote by Jack21222 Oh look, more talking points. The whole "deserve to keep what somebody willingly gave you" schtick won't work on me. I used to use that all the time a decade ago when I was a Libertarian. Fact is, for society to function, taxes must exist, and taxes should come from those with the means to pay without sacrificing food or medicine or shelter. I cannot parse your "tax units" plan. Get to the bottom line... who will pay more and who will pay less under your plan? In your last point about giving people direct food and direct payment of rent... those programs already exist.
I support Taxes I was in the Army I want us to have a government. The problem is the current "non-essential" Government programs have grown out of control and are a cumbersome burden. I am not its not a schtick somebody did willingly pay all those evil rich people those 100's of millions of dollars a year.

Paying taxes for a highway or research or even a new air craft carrier are very different then paying the government to donate money to the needy while borrowing $0.40 of every dollar it gives out. Nobody needs to starve nobody needs to go homeless. My question is how much of our GDP should be dedicated to supporting the bottom 20%? Its your turn to say somethign concrete as I have given you multiple posts with actual numbers and opinions and all you do is call it talking points. I want some hard numbers of what you want. WHo pays who gets it what rate? how do we stop these programs from becoming the entire annual budget? Recognitions: Gold Member  Quote by Jimmy Snyder My take is that eventually the 5 'conservatives' are going to have to get behind Romney and once they do, he will pick his VP from among them. He can't win without the conservative wing of his party. So they are really running against each other. In order to make this work though, they have to stop harping on the Bain Capital thing. What the heck kind of conservative blames a capitalist for being a capitalist? Plenty of other stellar conservatives from which to choose who are not candidates, esp. Rubio, Ryan, Christie. Rubio, in particular, has gained respect across the isle: During a lengthy Rubio floor speech:  Sen Rubio: ...... Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “Will the Senator yield for a question?” Sen. Rubio: “Yes, I'll yield.” Sen. John Kerry: “I thank the Senator for doing that. That's become somewhat unusual in the Senate today. So I truly appreciate it. ... http://northfloridanow.com/senator-m...s-p4242-92.htm Mentor Blog Entries: 4  Quote by Oltz I support Taxes I was in the Army I want us to have a government. The problem is the current "non-essential" Government programs have grown out of control and are a cumbersome burden. I am not its not a schtick somebody did willingly pay all those evil rich people those 100's of millions of dollars a year. Paying taxes for a highway or research or even a new air craft carrier are very different then paying the government to donate money to the needy while borrowing$0.40 of every dollar it gives out. Nobody needs to starve nobody needs to go homeless. My question is how much of our GDP should be dedicated to supporting the bottom 20%? Its your turn to say somethign concrete as I have given you multiple posts with actual numbers and opinions and all you do is call it talking points. I want some hard numbers of what you want. WHo pays who gets it what rate? how do we stop these programs from becoming the entire annual budget?
Please stop harrassing Jack. I don't see anywhere in your posts that you have cited any sources to back up anything you have posted.
 Admin Romney and his opponents http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/us...y-defense.html

 Quote by Oltz The problem is the current "non-essential" Government programs have grown out of control and are a cumbersome burden.
I'd say the problem is that different people disagree on what is "non-essential", not that they've grown out of control. Enough politicians believe them to be essential. After all, if any truly were non-essential, then they wouldn't exist.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by daveb After all, if any truly were non-essential, then they wouldn't exist.
Ah, optimism. How I love it.

Mentor
 Quote by daveb I'd say the problem is that different people disagree on what is "non-essential", not that they've grown out of control. Enough politicians believe them to be essential. After all, if any truly were non-essential, then they wouldn't exist.
My definition comes from a strict reading of the Constitution. On that basis, I consider all social programs and subsidies optional.

 Quote by daveb I'd say the problem is that different people disagree on what is "non-essential", not that they've grown out of control. Enough politicians believe them to be essential. After all, if any truly were non-essential, then they wouldn't exist.
Enough politicians think programs are essential for re-election. Essential government programs are those needed to facilitate governance. Those include:

1. Major Infrastruture Planning and Funding. (projects that effect or benefit multiple states)
2. Settle disputes both between states and other entities that cross jurisdictions i.e environmental issues.
3. Issue guidlines and Laws that are deemed best applied the same way acorss the entire nation. i.e. voting age
4. Defense this includes many fields of research as well
5. Interact with other nations.
6. Fund itself

All other functions are non essential and you can have a government and nation with out them. Some would go to lower levels (state/county/city/local) others are flat out not needed.

Even the post office is not essential in this country anymore.

Its pretty hard to say a program that garuntees any loan is essential...We have bankruptcy laws for a reason companies and industries like people need to survive or not on their own merits. I am sure you can think of some others...
 Apparently Romney's in favor of the minimum wage rising with inflation, which I think would benefit both individual minumum wage earners and businesses, and therefore be good for the US. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1200418.html

 Quote by ThomasT Apparently Romney's in favor of the minimum wage rising with inflation, which I think would benefit both individual minumum wage earners and businesses, and therefore be good for the US. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1200418.html
...says the guy who vetoed a minimum wage increase while he was governor.

 Quote by Evo Not necessarily true. The company my father worked for had union and non-union workers. The non-union workers in the same job titles received more merit raises and benefits since they were not locked into a contract. I was at a company dinner and had this conversation with the company's attorney. Also, where I worked, there was a very large union, when I started I was an occupational (non-management) worker. I elected not to join the union, but I got the same pay and benefits as the union workers, the company did not discriminate. I did not like the union and refused to limit the amount of work I did. As one union job steward threatened me to stop being so productive, she said that the union had worked very hard to convince management that workers could not do that amount of work and I was hurting them. I hate unions and union mentality.
Evo, since we have both lived in Kansas, we both know that Kansas is a right-to-work state. You received the same pay and benefits as the union workers, not because the company did not discriminate, but because that’s what the law required. The consensus is that in non-right-to-work states, union workers do make higher wages and have better benefits than non-union workers.

A study done by the University of Tennessee indicated that the wage differential between union and non-union workers was about 10% but that union workers were also about 10% more productive due to the grievance process which allows grievances between workers and management to be resolved without the worker leaving the company. That process significantly reduced turnover, rehiring, training, production errors and injuries.

It is possible that the union steward who told you not to work so hard misinterpreted the union’s objectives. Generally the unions use increases in production as a basis for negotiating higher wages, thus higher production is in the best interests of the union.

Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
 Quote by skeptic2 Generally the unions use increases in production as a basis for negotiating higher wages, thus higher production is in the best interests of the union.
Not at the company I worked for. And remember, I worked both as occupational and management for the same company for over thirty years and saw the problems from both sides. I guess there could be some exceptions to the rule, but this union was the pits, IMO.
 Even when he's helping someone, he still comes off as fake or just buying attention: Romney Gives Unemployed Woman Cash

Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
Looks like Romney is going to take SC.

 Romney opens 21-point lead in South Carolina: Reuters/Ipsos poll
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80D0U420120114

 Quote by ginru Even when he's helping someone, he still comes off as fake or just buying attention: Romney Gives Unemployed Woman Cash
lol ... really ?
 The woman, 55-year-old Ruth Williams, says she has been following the Romney campaign since he arrived in the state on Jan. 11, when she said she received a message from God to track him down.
Is this type of story we should consider worthy as any kind of appraisal for or against any Presidential candidate of the USA ?
Are these the stories that the GOP race/fight/political selection been reduced to in it's elimination round?

I see some of the discussion has already started about Mr. Romney's possible partner in crime .. um um I mean Vice President.
He seems to to be the foregone concussion as the ticket name ... so far.

The GOP is still roounding em up and lining em up and shooting em down ...
It ain't over yet.

 Quote by Evo Looks like Romney is going to take SC. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80D0U420120114
This poll was before his stumbling performance at the Myrtle Beach debate. If he repeats this Thursday for the CNN debate he might be in trouble.

Skippy
 The good: Romney is frank about his views, which I respect. He plainly says that he is against gay marriage, against medical marijuana, and even believes women should never hold the presidential office. The bad: But, he comes off as a rich guy out of touch with the common person's financial woes. He recently said that his effective tax rate is "around 15 percent". That's pretty low for a guy who is in the top 0.001% as far as total wealth. The ugly: This really showed when he offered Rick Perry a casual $10K bet over a minor debate point. He does know the average person can't casually bet$10K, right?