Sponsored Links

[Paladin Elspeth]

Here is the link to a video of what Mitt Romney said during one of the Republican Primary debates:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/29/1...al?detail=email

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.

So, was Romney right?

Were it in your power, would you refuse Federal disaster relief to the victims/survivors of Hurricane Sandy based on what he said?

Was Romney sincere, or was he pandering to one group of potential supporters?

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 29 2012, 11:26 PM

[AuthorMusician]

So, was Romney right?

No.

Were it in your power, would you refuse Federal disaster relief to the victims/survivors of Hurricane Sandy based on what he said?

No. And isn't this convenient. Republicans want the states to take over everything, including what happens that is disastrous in those states. It's like the United States doesn't even exist. We are not in this thing together.

Was Romney sincere, or was he pandering to one group of potential supporters?

Probably pandering. Or maybe he meant it. Or something else. Who the hell knows?

This past summer, home owners and renters in my state faced a horrible wildfire. Federal help came through. If any of these people think that Romney is right, I invite them to move someplace where disasters don't happen.

And good luck. You will need it.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Oct 30 2012, 02:44 AM

[amf]

Romney was pandering to get the votes he needs. He's all about telling everyone what he thinks they want to hear even if it's not true. The Romney campaign decided early on that they couldn't win with the truth, so they're willing to say and do anything including dabbling with birthers, taking quotes wildly out of context, or just making stuff up and then doubling-down on it when called on the veracity of their position.

HOWEVER, the interview isn't clear to me that Romney was even answering the question. It's possible he completely ignored King and just used the question as a way to get some talking points in. On this particular issue, I am willing to give a pass on it.

[scubatim]

taking quotes wildly out of context, or just making stuff up and then doubling-down on it when called on the veracity of their position.

Come on...don't even try to make this exclusively a Romney tactic...this is standard operating procedure for politicians today. Neither of the big two camps ran an honest campaign. Both spewed lie after lie, distortion after distortion and out of context quotes throughout the entire season. Neither of the two ran an honorable campaign and in my opinion for that reason alone neither deserve to be President of The United States.

[Vanguard]

So, was Romney right?

I think he is. We cannot continue providing financial assistance in the myriad ways we do to all those who are afflicted in one way or another.

Were it in your power, would you refuse Federal disaster relief to the victims/survivors of Hurricane Sandy based on what he said?

This question seems to suggest that in the clip Romney said there would be absolutely no Federal assistance provided. Rather, I understood him to say that he would prefer "tak[ing] something from the federal government and send[ing] it back to the states". In other words, "taking it from" and "sending it back" would suggest the transfer of federal dollars to the individual states in support of disasters.


Was Romney sincere, or was he pandering to one group of potential supporters?

Absolutely sincere. I don't see the pandering though? This question turns the term "pandering" on its head by making it sound like if I rallied for the federal government to spend less money I would be pandering to those who believe we should be spending less!!? Makes no sense.

[Dingo]

ROMNEY: ... 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.

So, was Romney right?
Yeah, I'm tired of the massive subsidies and sweet tax deals and revolving doors between private corporations and government. I don't notice flea markets, garage sale folks and farmers markets running around with their beggar hands out and their full time government bribers. They also don't need a massive military enforcement agency to protect their foreign interests. Why can't they model those free marketers?

[CruisingRam]

Funny- Romney thinks that helping people that are the victims of natural disasters is immoral- but socializing his business losses through bankruptcy court and using creative accounting to rip off banks and investors is okay. Shows you what an evil amoral scumbag this guy really is.

[AuthorMusician]

This question seems to suggest that in the clip Romney said there would be absolutely no Federal assistance provided. Rather, I understood him to say that he would prefer "tak[ing] something from the federal government and send[ing] it back to the states". In other words, "taking it from" and "sending it back" would suggest the transfer of federal dollars to the individual states in support of disasters.

Actually, the states send money to the feds via taxes, and then the feds distribute that money back to the states. Some states get more than put in, and some get less.

So Romney wouldn't change anything?

Well, disaster relief is now in the news big time. Federal support is one of the focal points. I doubt any arguments will be coming out against it, except maybe from the way-way-way right blogs.

[Amlord]

This has got to be the worst reading comprehension of all times. You all get Fs.

What Romney said is that racking up big debts is immoral. He didn't say federal disaster relief is immoral. He did say that we should get things down to as local of a level as possible.

So, was Romney right?

Big debts are immoral -- he was correct.
Problems should be solved on the most local level -- he was correct.

What we need to do is get a set of priorities and stick to them. Do we want disaster relief? If so, then we should cut other things. Do we want a large social safety net? Then we need to cut other things.

Not even the United States government has unlimited resources. We need to make decisions about what to do with the limited resources that we have. What we should NOT do is kick the can down the road and spend our children's money.

Were it in your power, would you refuse Federal disaster relief to the victims/survivors of Hurricane Sandy based on what he said?

Of course not. The structure of disaster relief is what it is. The debt levels are what they are. Romney wants states to provide a larger role in disaster relief. That isn't in place now so we have to roll with what we've got.

Was Romney sincere, or was he pandering to one group of potential supporters?

He was talking conceptually. I hope he was sincere.

Newsflash to liberals: there are other ways to solve our problems than the big government, top-down structure that we have now. The entire scheme is screwed up because while states must balance their budgets, the feds don't. So we don't plan ahead for relatively foreseeable occurences such as storms because we rely on the "unlimited" deep pockets of the federal government. We're stealing from our children because we refuse to pay for what we have to.

Imagine a world where we weren't all grasshoppers, eating from day to day and not planning for the future. Imagine if we could plan to have an actual rainy day fund which could be used to rebuild after storms. Imagine a world where a governor doesn't have to wait for some guy in a federal district somewhere to say he can have access to the money he needs.

Imagine a world where we paid for what we bought. Such radical ideas...

[CruisingRam]

Romney racked up debts like a drunken sailor and then didn't pay those debts- again, why is it moral for him to do it for profit but not okay for the government to do it in an emergency?

[trumpetplayer]

Romney racked up debts like a drunken sailor and then didn't pay those debts- again, why is it moral for him to do it for profit but not okay for the government to do it in an emergency?

Some links of proof backing up you say ONCE in a while would be GREAT!

PS. Lose the Libertarian tag, you aren't fooling anyone.

[scubatim]

Funny- Romney thinks that helping people that are the victims of natural disasters is immoral- but socializing his business losses through bankruptcy court and using creative accounting to rip off banks and investors is okay. Shows you what an evil amoral scumbag this guy really is.

No, he said the debt is immoral...he also said to give the money back to the states instead of the federal government. Spin on, my friend!

Romney racked up debts like a drunken sailor and then didn't pay those debts- again, why is it moral for him to do it for profit but not okay for the government to do it in an emergency?

If it was just during emergencies, you might have a point....but you don't.

[CruisingRam]

Romney racked up debts like a drunken sailor and then didn't pay those debts- again, why is it moral for him to do it for profit but not okay for the government to do it in an emergency?

Some links of proof backing up you say ONCE in a while would be GREAT!

PS. Lose the Libertarian tag, you aren't fooling anyone.

Libertarian is also against crony capitalism.

Big Business is an even bigger threat to personal freedom than big government

I thought this was old news to everyone here- but ask and ye shall recieve-

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/r...zed-losses.html

[trumpetplayer]

Romney racked up debts like a drunken sailor and then didn't pay those debts- again, why is it moral for him to do it for profit but not okay for the government to do it in an emergency?

Some links of proof backing up you say ONCE in a while would be GREAT!

PS. Lose the Libertarian tag, you aren't fooling anyone.

Libertarian is also against crony capitalism.

Big Business is an even bigger threat to personal freedom than big government

I thought this was old news to everyone here- but ask and ye shall recieve-

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/r...zed-losses.html

Sorry champ, but your link doesn't support your claims.

Big business (most by far) are not a tax payer subsidized entity. You should look up what Cony Capitalism is there champ! Then look and see who's actually doing it

Tag is looking a little thin there Champ.

[Dingo]

Imagine if we could plan to have an actual rainy day fund which could be used to rebuild after storms.

Why stop there; a hurricane fund, an earthquake fund, a large scale forest fire etc. fund, a drought and water fund, a rising ocean fund, a human displacement fund, an emergency housing fund, a major food shortage fund, an emergency health care fund, an energy spike fund, an infrastructure crisis fund, a plague fund, a border crossing escalation fund, a drug crisis fund, an insurrection and or terrorist fund etc.etc. Lots of interesting things coming down the pike. Maybe we could start with a half trillion and then raise it annually on a cost of living basis. As long as we are going for a pound of cure over an ounce of prevention we need to keep this fund well stocked. Chocolate coat it as a stimulus fund that EVERYONE WILL NEED!

[Bikerdad]

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.

So, was Romney right? Yes. It is immoral to saddle our children, and grandchildren with debt.

Were it in your power, would you refuse Federal disaster relief to the victims/survivors of Hurricane Sandy based on what he said?
Yes, sort of. We went round 'n round on this following Katrina and Irene. My position is that the Federal role in "disaster relief" should strictly limited to immediate SAR and "emergency shelter" type activities. The only rebuilding the Feds should be funding is Federal buildings, interstates, etc.

Was Romney sincere, or was he pandering to one group of potential supporters?
I don't know.

Do you think it is moral to saddle our children and grandchildren with debt?

Big Business is an even bigger threat to personal freedom than big government

No, it isn't. While I'm right with you there against crony capitalism, what you've said here is dead wrong. Operative word "dead". Big Business does not have a legal monopoly on the use of force. It's only when Big Business gets in bed with government that it becomes truly dangerous, because gov't has the guns.

[Hobbes]

So, was Romney right?

Yes, but what he said was not in reference to disaster relief, it was to the concept of continued huge deficit spending.

Were it in your power, would you refuse Federal disaster relief to the victims/survivors of Hurricane Sandy based on what he said?

No, but the situation there does point to part of the problem. Why is such a relatively weak hurricane causing so much damage? Clearly, that entire area was ill prepared for a storm. This can be a consequence of such relief--why spend alot of money ahead of disasters to prevent damage when the Federal government will bail you out afterwards?

Was Romney sincere, or was he pandering to one group of potential supporters?

Romney was sincere, this interpretation of what he said isn't. Just because a question was asked doesn't mean that the answer related solely to it---in politics, during campaigning, it never does.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 30 2012, 04:12 PM

[Dingo]

the situation there does point to part of the problem. Why is such a relatively weak hurricane causing so much damage? Clearly, that entire area was ill prepared for a storm. This can be a consequence of such relief--why spend alot of money ahead of disasters to prevent damage when the Federal government will bail you out afterwards?

And whose going to provide that ounce of prevention that will head off the necessity of a pound of cure?

[amf]

Why is such a relatively weak hurricane causing so much damage?

As someone who grew up with hurricanes, there's NO SUCH THING as a "weak hurricane". They're ALL dangerous once they get close to land. It's like asking why a 7.9 earthquake is "weak" when you compare it against a 9.6 earthquake. In the case of Sandy, the wind field was HUGE and the storm surge hit a lot of very heavily populated sea-level areas much of which had above-ground wiring.

Romney was sincere

How can you tell? From day to day he changes his positions, so how can you claim this one statement is "sincere"?

[Paladin Elspeth]

It is easy to minimize the suffering of others or to opine that the states themselves could take care of their own people during disasters. If a person is financially well-off, it is easy for that person to feel that all people should be as s/he should be, i.e., caring for one's own and expecting that everyone else has the motivation and the wherewithal to do the same, and to believe that those who cannot take care of themselves are in that situation through some fault of their own.

And still others among us might protest that they don't want to be "forced" by the government to help take care of fellow Americans whom we do not know personally--that all charity should be willingly given, or there should be no charity at all. But where is the kindness toward our children and future children for which Romney appeared to be so concerned at the time he expressed it? Surely he knows that if we do not help the children who are here now who are in need, we're not taking care of future children, either. There are more children than we can count who are being affected by the weather disaster known as "Sandy" even as we are on this forum debating.

I don't think it is realistic to expect that the states will be able to individually pony-up enough money and resources to take care of this without Federal help.

If Romney indeed sidestepped John King's question as some of you have written, we need to ask why. It might be as simple as his considering that he would not look "Tea Party" enough to the people who were listening that day. So yet again, what does Romney REALLY think? Does he expect Americans to be self-sufficient enough to withstand any insult that nature throws at them without getting help?

And if so, why was Romney so ready to get Federal funding to "save" the Olympics in Utah as he is so fond of enumerating amongst his accomplishments?

And to answer this question:

Do you think it is moral to saddle our children and grandchildren with debt?

Do you think it is moral to neglect the parents if they are in need? How does that help the children and grandchildren?

Seems to me that during a previous administration, the primary spenders in the Congress had no qualms at all about spending, and their President was the Enabler-in-Chief, not even being honest enough to include the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as budget items.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 30 2012, 04:52 PM