Mitt Romney Presidential Campaign

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al_Moritz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott_Lafrance said:
This is a great idea. One size fits all solutions for everything!

Housing, automobiles, food, clothing, furniture, everything!

Everyone would have the exact same house, car, clothes, food. Then no one can complain about being marginalized. No more class warfare. No more envy of success, because we wouldn’t define ourselves that way. Success in America is when EVERYONE is exactly the same, everyone would be completely equal…well, the politicians would be “more equal than others”, but other than that…

It would be Harrison Bergeron in living color!
Click to expand...
Housing, automobiles, food, clothing, furniture don’t have to be equal, and neither does health care. But people should at least have access to health care, even if it is not the same quality of care that wealthier people can afford. The same applies to food, clothing, and shelter. People don’t have to eat in the finest restaurants, be able to afford the best clothes, or live in the fanciest homes. But they should have access to the basic necessities of life. As it stands, there are people living now in the US who cannot afford decent health care because they are either unemployed, underemployed, their job does not provide coverage, or the cost of private insurance is too high. That is a fact.
 
Julia_Mae said:
I don’t disagree, but I was less talking about the issue really than the language of sometime in the future intending to encourage….: It’s just such perfect politicospeak. I actually haven’t cared about politics since they shot Bobby. We get the presidents assigned to us. All the politicking is just smoke and mirrors to distract us and keep us divided and so, powerless.

Interesting that people don’t seem to know how much the economy has improved since Obama took office. Maybe because Romney kept saying he made it worse. He did not. Smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...
I think the language Romney uses is a good indicator of his potential policy as President. Even if the economy has somewhat improved, the fact is it is still not good for many people, and the perception is that it may not get much better in the near future and may actually get worse. If, after all is said and done, people believe this to be the case due to Obama’s lack of leadership, then Romney has a decent chance. In addition to the Obama campaign, what may thwart Romney’s chances are his own campaign, which is making too much of the non-economic issues, and his own person, which people are having a hard time warming up to.
 
meltzerboy said:
Housing, automobiles, food, clothing, furniture don’t have to be equal, and neither does health care. But poorer people should at least have access to health care, even if it is not the same quality of care that wealthier people can afford. The same applies to food, clothing, and shelter. People don’t have to eat in the finest restaurants, be able to afford the best clothes, or live in the fanciest homes. But they should have access to the basic necessities of life. As it stands, there are people living now in the US who cannot afford decent health care because they are either unemployed, underemployed, their job does not provide coverage, or the cost of private insurance is too high. That is a fact.
Click to expand...
 
oldcelt said:
Now that’s a strawman…hope you enjoyed the lesson,

John
Click to expand...
Actually, it is not. I said that your statement that “healthcare will be** equally available across the board**” “assumes that everything must be equal across the board.” I never said that you assumed it. I’m making the claim that your attitude requires that assumption. I hope you enjoyed your lesson.
 
meltzerboy said:
Housing, automobiles, food, clothing, furniture don’t have to be equal, and neither does health care. But people should at least have access to health care, even if it is not the same quality of care that wealthier people can afford. The same applies to food, clothing, and shelter.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Who doesn’t have access to health care?
 
rlg94086 said:
Actually, it is not. I said that your statement that “healthcare will be** equally available across the board**” “assumes that everything must be equal across the board.” I never said that you assumed it. I’m making the claim that your attitude requires that assumption. I hope you enjoyed your lesson.
Click to expand...
Robert, does “equally available” mean the same as “equal”? I don’t think so. The health care of poorer people will never be equal to that of wealthier people; however, health care should be equally available to both. Unless you sincerely believe that health care should not be available to poorer people, which I doubt.
 
meltzerboy said:
Housing, automobiles, food, clothing, furniture don’t have to be equal, and neither does health care. But people should at least have access to health care, even if it is not the same quality of care that wealthier people can afford. The same applies to food, clothing, and shelter. People don’t have to eat in the finest restaurants, be able to afford the best clothes, or live in the fanciest homes. But they should have access to the basic necessities of life. As it stands, there are people living now in the US who cannot afford decent health care because they are either unemployed, underemployed, their job does not provide coverage, or the cost of private insurance is too high. That is a fact.
Click to expand...
There is a grand distinction between access to healthcare and provisioning of healthcare.
 
Actually, it is not. I said that your statement that “healthcare will be equally available across the board” “assumes that everything must be equal across the board.” I never said that you assumed it. I’m making the claim that your attitude requires that assumption. I hope you enjoyed your lesson.
Click to expand...
Whatever you say, Robert, there are too many assumptions in there to keep straight,

John
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
There is a grand distinction between access to healthcare and provisioning of healthcare.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to state vs. federal funding? If so, where would a poorer state economy get the money to provide adequate health care services? By the same token, one may ask where the federal government gets the money to give to the states? Other, less essential services may have to be cut and/or higher taxes imposed. But don’t you think health care is an essential enough priority?

Or are you referring to something else? Privatization perhaps?
 
meltzerboy said:
I think the language Romney uses is a good indicator of his potential policy as President. Even if the economy has somewhat improved, the fact is it is still not good for many people, and the perception is that it may not get much better in the near future and may actually get worse.
Click to expand...
I agree this is the perception. I also believe, objectively, that we are about to see a wave of repossessions of rental properties that were big investments at the same time people were gobbling up all the overpriced homes that got repo’ed. I think it takes longer for landlords to go bankrupt.

But all of this was inevitable the day the towers came down. People love scapegoats, tho.’
 
meltzerboy said:
Some already know that although I am pro-choice, I am opposed to the HHS mandate since I believe it is a violation of religious liberty, as Cardinal Dolan so eloquently stated. I agree with you that Romney won’t touch that one before the election and perhaps not after the election either, if he should become President. For now, he’ll be as elusive and vague as possible, trying to please both sides, not wanting to lose his base and hoping to gain some independent voters as well. He is not only an adroit evolutionist but a skilled tight-rope walker. As it is, I believe the GOP has gotten too embroiled in social issues and health care, instead of focusing like a laser beam on the economy and jobs. Despite all this, the economy is so poor that Romney just might pull it off.
Click to expand...
All of Romney’s ads focus on the economy.

The election is Romney’s to lose.
 
meltzerboy said:
Are you referring to state vs. federal funding? If so, where would a poorer state economy get the money to provide adequate health care services? By the same token, one may ask where the federal government gets the money to give to the states? Other, less essential services may have to be cut and/or higher taxes imposed. But don’t you think health care is an essential enough priority?

Or are you referring to something else? Privatization perhaps?
Click to expand...
The state would need to reform its policies.

The federal government doesn’t give money to the states to help people. That’s only a cover story to fool people.

The federal government TAKES money from the states, way more than it gives back, and redistributes it.

States literally have to beg the government to get their money back, which often comes with conditions that aren’t noticed by those who can’t see past the sparkle of big D’s behind names of DC cronies.

That is unacceptable and probably unconstitutional in almost every case.

That’s why both you and John and even zenith have to argue with the rest of us on **emotional platitudes **and hogwash like “equality” or “where would we be without federal help”.

Well, for starters, if your state wasn’t paying so much in federal money or part of Ken Salazar’s land grab out West, it would have more money to help its people.

The only essential services of the federal government are to see that Constitution is upheld.

That means all they need to do is monitor INTER-state commerce, resolve disputes between the states, protect the borders and defend the land from foreign invasion.

There is no Constitutional obligation whatsoever for the government to provide ANYTHING other than what I just stated—no abortion, no health care, no marriage, no bailouts.

Those issues would be referred to the individual states and that is the only way to completely and solidly uphold freedom.

The problem is you don’t see that because for the time being the current government is doing mostly what you agree with.

It’ll be interesting to see what your views on government are as the Muslim population keeps on exploding in Israel and the West and as the democrats make adjustments to pander n promise to them just as they did to Jews, Blacks, women and Native Americans before them.
 
That’s why both you and John and even zenith have to argue with the rest of us on emotional platitudes and hogwash like “equality”
Click to expand...
Equality an emotional platitude…that’s news to me,

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top