jduster said:I may actually end up supporting Mitt Romney.
I generally don't approve of the president's performance, and the other Republican candidates are either too extreme in their views, too ignorant on the issues, unelectable or have too many personal flaws.
And yes, the "experiment" was Obama, who, when injected into the Presidency (what could we have been thinking?), was like asking a cat to do trig. Regardless of beauty, training or grace, the cat is only good at one thing, being a cat. [Note to Oversensitive Liberals: - this is not a racial slur, it is in enterspecies slur.]
phoenix:\\ said:A bit too much information. Graceful and beautiful? Captivated by looks than policies and know-how had your mind in a tizzy. j/k :)
Why would it be a racial slur though? Were you thinking of something naughty whilst writing that reply? Cat knows nothing about trig, but even if you tried to teach it, it still wouldn't learn trig because it doesn't have the necessary brain power to manipulate numbers, etc... on such a level. I think it was a bad analogy on your part as equating Obama to something that could never learn even if he tried. It is seen as unfair to judge him so harshly. Much better to substitute 'cat' for 'baby', because babies grow and as they grow they become more wise, or substitute 'baby' for 'kid'. What was the reason behind equating Obama to a separate species, is he not human to you?
But you see how such comments can be taken to be seen as 'racist' (strict adherence to the definition of the word)? "Obama doesn't and will never be a competent president due to a lack of higher thought processes as he is of a different species." Oversensitive liberals? Now I take offense!
@WhoWee's link: Mitt Romney winning Florida was well known before that became the centerpiece of attention.
phoenix:\\ said:Mitt Romney poured millions into Florida whilst Gringrich only started focusing on Florida as soon after he won S.C.. Mitt Romney does well in states he has had a long standing run in like Florida, like Iowa, and like New Hampshire. In states he hasn't had a 4 year run in, or states that aren't privy to him as much as the ones he focuses on like S.C., he loses or does not do so well in.
I don't know what the hustle and bustle is about but that wasn't even a big lead considering the sheer amount of money and ads he placed into that state over Gingrich. Gringrich with far fewer time to instill a huge divide still had a good enough number to come close to Romney. And the beginning statement, "Mitt Romney CRUSHED...", seriously? He won by 14% even with all of the time spent in Florida which is above 50% of the time Gingrich spent in Florida.
second-place finish in South Carolina to sweep the winner-take-all contest and reassert his frontrunner status.
phoenix:\\ said:"Decisive"? South Carolina was decisive, New Hampshire was decisive, Iowa was not decisive. "Crushed" within the context doesn't correlate with it as a decisive victory, it means that the victory (in terms of being crushed) was a huge defeat. That quotation you have proves as much:
Crushed in terms of being decisive? No, I am not buying that was the meaning behind the remarks in the article that failed to even note Mitt having a well-known presence in Florida before Newt even began eyeing the state as a central focus.
"Winner-take-all" and "reassertion of front-runner status"... Oh please! Fox news is apart of the establishment so I shouldn't be surprised.
Reason I put 'crushed' in capitals was to emphasize that the article said it. A bit excessive, yes, but I felt it necessary at the time.
Rob D said:And yes, the "experiment" was Obama, who, when injected into the Presidency (what could we have been thinking?), was like asking a cat to do trig. Regardless of beauty, training or grace, the cat is only good at one thing, being a cat. [Note to Oversensitive Liberals: - this is not a racial slur, it is in enterspecies slur.]
RD
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/mitt-romney-very-poor_n_1246557.html"I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it," the Republican front-runner said Wednesday on CNN, following his victory in the Florida primary.
Looking at his 59 points it seems pretty clear to me that Mitt is basically concerned about continuing with business as usual along with reducing the social safety net for poor Americans and reducing necessary regulation of businesses and the financial sector.turbo said:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/mitt-romney-very-poor_n_1246557.html
Mitt is not concerned about the very poor. How about homeless veterans sheltering under bridges and overpasses? The "safety net" is not all that effective, especially since people who have lost their jobs and homes due to avarice and greed at the top have to wait and work through the system to try to get warm shelter and keep their kids fed. This interview will come back to haunt him in the general election.
Char. Limit said:If Mitt Romney wins the primary, which he stands a good chance of doing, who do you think would be a good VP for him? My own personal choice if I were in his shoes would be Marco Rubio. He's skilled, he doesn't have many black marks, and he helps deliver the Hispanic vote.
ThomasT said:Looking at his 59 points it seems pretty clear to me that Mitt is basically concerned about continuing with business as usual along with reducing the social safety net for poor Americans and reducing necessary regulation of businesses and the financial sector.
I do think the safety net for the poor is currently fairly effective. That is, qualified applicants are given food, shelter, and even money sometimes, aren't they? I don't know of anywhere in the US where there's actual abject poverty. As for homeless veterens, I think that's their choice -- maybe due to abuse of alcohol and drugs, or mental illness of some sort. Afaik, the VA has programs to help them if they want it.
Anyway, when Romney says that if the safety net for the poor is broken then he'll fix it, I think that he's just lying.
Ok, that's a good point.WhoWee said:Is it possible that fixing the safety net might entail making it more streamlined and cost effective = more benefits spent on beneficiaries and less on administrative overhead?
Angry Citizen said:Support requested.
When his father died in 1995, Mitt donated his inheritance to BYU's George W. Romney Institute of Public Management and joined the board and was vice-chair of the Points of Light Foundation, which had incorporated his father's National Volunteer Center).[40][102]
LAMB: By the way, why did your father not give you any of his inheritance?
ROMNEY: Well, he didn’t have as much as I think some people anticipated. And I did get a check from my dad when he passed away. I shouldn’t say a check, but I did inherit some funds from my dad.
But I turned and gave that away to charity. In this case I gave it to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor, the George W. Romney School of Public Management.
And as an institute of public management, it helps young people learn about government and about serving in public service. And that’s where his inheritance ended up.
LAMB: Did he have a philosophy that he didn’t want to pass on a lot of money to his kids?
ROMNEY: Well, I don’t think he had as much as some people might have imagined. And he spent his money on things he cared about. He was a real champion of volunteerism.
So he funded volunteer efforts and worked to support the things he cared about. My kids got some money from my mom and dad. They are happy that they were able to receive some funds. That helped them in their education and getting started in life. But in my case, I figured we had enough of our own.
LAMB: At some point I noticed you were on the Points of Light Foundation board, but you go back to either your father starting the volunteer organization that merged into Points of Light?
ROMNEY: Yes.
LAMB: Explain that.
ROMNEY: Well, my dad began a group, I think it was first called Volunteer. And the idea was to help people connect with volunteer opportunities. His idea was to set up offices around the country, some affiliated with the United Way, others independent, where people would know what volunteer opportunities were available in the community.
And then people could come in and say, look, I have got so many hours and afternoons, what do you have for me? And they would try and put people together with volunteer opportunities. And he campaigned for that hard.
About the same time, President George H.W. Bush came out with the idea of the points of light and the Points of Light Foundation. It had a very similar concept. And the thought was, let’s put these two together where George Romney’s Volunteer organization could combine with the Points of Light Foundation and promote volunteerism, bring together -- one of the things was to bring together all the presidents, all the living presidents to promote volunteerism, something my dad championed and worked for.
He passed away just before that conference. And I was invited to step on the board and work with the Points of Light Foundation. It was a source of great honor for me to stand where my dad had stood, and to see this convocation of great leaders and people from around the country talk about volunteerism.
And the Points of Light Foundation continues to help the nation find opportunities for people to serve one another.
LAMB: You finished first in your class at Brigham Young University in Utah.
ROMNEY: Almost. I did very well at Brigham Young and I was the valedictorian in terms of speaking at the graduation. And I think I had the highest grade point in my college of humanities.
But I don’t know who was number one in the entire class. So I will correct the record on that. I graduated with highest honors and I did pretty well at Brigham Young. I didn’t do as well at Stanford, by the way.
phoenix:\\ said:"Decisive"? South Carolina was decisive, New Hampshire was decisive, Iowa was not decisive. "Crushed" within the context doesn't correlate with it as a decisive victory, it means that the victory (in terms of being crushed) was a huge defeat. That quotation you have proves as much:
Crushed in terms of being decisive? No, I am not buying that was the meaning behind the remarks in the article that failed to even note Mitt having a well-known presence in Florida before Newt even began eyeing the state as a central focus.
"Winner-take-all" and "reassertion of front-runner status"... Oh please! Fox news is apart of the establishment so I shouldn't be surprised.
Reason I put 'crushed' in capitals was to emphasize that the article said it. A bit excessive, yes, but I felt it necessary at the time.
Char. Limit said:If Mitt Romney wins the primary, which he stands a good chance of doing, who do you think would be a good VP for him? My own personal choice if I were in his shoes would be Marco Rubio. He's skilled, he doesn't have many black marks, and he helps deliver the Hispanic vote.
WhoWee said:Personally, I don't like the idea of tapping anyone in their first term - whether it's Senator Obama, or Senator Rubio, or a first term Governor from NJ or SC. The President of the US is a job that should not be fast-traced (IMO).
Imo, crushed could also mean that Romney won all delegates in Florida, Gingrich got zero. Although it sounds as if Gingrich is now going to sue Florida and try to get the delegates split based on percentage of the vote
Is it possible that fixing the safety net might entail making it more streamlined and cost effective = more benefits spent on beneficiaries and less on administrative overhead?
phoenix:\\ said:On a "winner-take-all" basis. Florida broke the rules but were still allowed to keep the winner take all? I don't know about you but I am calling foul on it. Gingrich is in the right to sue the state.
That regard is no actual crushing.
Cutting medicaid and its related programs?
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/19/391765/mitt-romneys-dream-world-cutting-billions-out-of-medicaid-will-not-hurt-the-poor/?mobile=nc
Also cutting a large sum of the food stamp program which would hurt the people currently trying to live and feed hungry children will, in your words, "streamline it and help procure more benefits"?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658
Point is, Romney doesn't care about the poor. He continually shows how out of touch he is with most Americans.
phoenix:\\ said:Maybe it's my opinion about Mitt Romney's mindset. However, I can say that his proposed policies do not support the poor.
If the numbers in those links are accurate, then what Romney's proposing seems like it would really hurt the general economy and millions of Americans. Not just the direct recipients of the aid would be affected, but the businesses and individuals who depend on that aid being spent in the general economy.phoenix:\\ said:Cutting medicaid and its related programs?
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/19/391765/mitt-romneys-dream-world-cutting-billions-out-of-medicaid-will-not-hurt-the-poor/?mobile=nc
Also cutting a large sum of the food stamp program which would hurt the people currently trying to live and feed hungry children will, in your words, "streamline it and help procure more benefits"?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658
Point is, Romney doesn't care about the poor. He continually shows how out of touch he is with most Americans.
ThomasT said:How can he expect to take hundreds of billions out of the real economy and not significantly increase unemployment and underemployment?
.
turbo said:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/mitt-romney-very-poor_n_1246557.html
Mitt is not concerned about the very poor. How about homeless veterans sheltering under bridges and overpasses? The "safety net" is not all that effective, especially since people who have lost their jobs and homes due to avarice and greed at the top have to wait and work through the system to try to get warm shelter and keep their kids fed. This interview will come back to haunt him in the general election.
phinds said:He's a Republican. They seem to think like that.
CAC1001 said:Where do they think that money came from in the first place? Government spending is money that was already taken out of the economy in one form (usually taxes or debt) and then re-injected back in another form.
If done all of a sudden, then yes it could increase unemployment as the defense industry was hit hard and unemployment shot up, but done gradually, the private economy should be able to employ people at the same rate as the defense industry would be firing people.
Rob D said:I'm no economist but it seems to me that the analogy to a household budget is almost direct. You have an income which is predictable. Your spending, however, exceeds that income so you have to borrow to cover it. Once you decide to return to financial responsibility, you as quickly as is possible reduce your expenditures by the amount you are borrowing. This you do aggressively and even ruthlessly if need be. Then you live within that income. My wife and I do it every month.
The only other way is to increase your income, again by the amount that you have been borrowing. Then you live within that amount however, you may not like the job you have to do to get that much income.
Simplistic I know but please show me where it's wrong.
Rob D said:I'm no economist but it seems to me that the analogy to a household budget is almost direct...Simplistic I know but please show me where it's wrong.