Mitt Romney Presidential Campaign

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al_Moritz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
so less $ spent on defense would be better?

And you know this for a FACT?
No one was talking about less…2 trillion more. There won’t be any less spending if Romney were to win, IMO. The only difference would be whose pockets it lined.

“Beware the Military-Industrial Complex.”

John
 
The federal budget is 60% entitlements and why Obama had deficits over a trillion dollars every yr. With chaos in the mid east, Iran bldgs nukes , Russia and Cuba sharing technology. It is nice wise to start cutting out national security when that is a small pecentage of the budget.
 
And this guy has the brass to complain about a trillion dollars for “Obamacare.”

money.cnn.com/2012/05/10/news/economy/romney-defense-spending/index.htm
And tell me Colm, what expenditures are actually called for in the Constitution? This IS one of the areas where the Federal government has a strong role. We can’t be a country of thousands of tiny militias.

The out of control spending is in the social services sector and tell me where in the Constitution we find a specific call for the Federal government to provide “feeding programs” or Pell grants or loans to unprofitable green energy companies or NPR?

Oh and the answer “promote the general welfare” is not a correct response to question number 2.

I think it’s GOOD news that Romney understands the role of the Federal government.

Lisa
 
And tell me Colm, what expenditures are actually called for in the Constitution? This IS one of the areas where the Federal government has a strong role. We can’t be a country of thousands of tiny militias.

The out of control spending is in the social services sector and tell me where in the Constitution we find a specific call for the Federal government to provide “feeding programs” or Pell grants or loans to unprofitable green energy companies or NPR?

Oh and the answer “promote the general welfare” is not a correct response to question number 2.

I think it’s GOOD news that Romney understands the role of the Federal government.

Lisa
So you ask the question and then set the conditions for the answers?

John
 
That’s wrong because it obviously violates subsidiarity. However, much of those who rightly support subsidiarity in the government, wrongly don’t support it in the free-market. The flip side to big government is big business.
How do you figure that? What is an example of those who support subsidiarity not supporting it in the free market?
 
So you ask the question and then set the conditions for the answers?

John
No merely trying to head off the usual canard used to excuse the bloated and inefficient spending on social services programs. If you look to the history behind “promote the general welfare” the operative word is GENERAL not welfare. Many mistake the two and use this provision to support the federal government’s increasing role in welfare as most think of the term, TANF, food stamps, WIC etc. BTW Republicans are as guilty as Democrats in ignoring the Constitution with respect to the role of the federal government in this area. I just learned WIC was a Nixon era act and of course Bush had NCLB and the Medicare Drug Benefit…I’m starting to sound like Scott…a pox on both of their houses!

At any rate I support necessary defense spending. It’s not a sacred cow that cannot be touched but given its mention by the Founding Fathers I tend to give more credence to Federal government involvement.

Lisa
 
Which is why a Catholic should let their Faith form their politics, not let their Politics form their Faith.
Should, possibly, from your perspective, but whether they would actually do so is another. From your point of view, why do a considerable number of Catholics support Barack Obama still? Is it a religious consideration, or a more secularized political one?
 
Anyway I don’t think you can draw any conclusions with respect to cutting back on a large federal government will suddenly mean our lives will be controlled by Walmart.
We already are subjected to a national Walmartification.
The six heirs to the Walmart fortune are worth as much as nearly half of all American households.
The democrats are the party of progressive ideas and the centralization of the culture of death. The GOP are the party of the wealthy and big business. They think it’s great that Walmarts have spread from sea to shinning sea. Everything is justified as long as share holder value rises. They don’t know what good really is. They reduce everything to profit and efficiency. They think invisible hands will fix everything if the government just backs off.

They, like the democrats, support pre-emptive strikes and the arming of rebels to the detrement of christians in the middle east. It’s stupid and the church doesn’t support this kind of garbage.

How conservatives can eagerly campaign for the king of Wall Street and the Mormon church who supported the bail-outs is beyond me.
 
We already are subjected to a national Walmartification. The democrats are the party of progressive ideas and the centralization of the culture of death. The GOP are the party of the wealthy and big business. They think it’s great that Walmarts have spread from sea to shinning sea. Everything is justified as long as share holder value rises. They don’t know what good really is. They reduce everything to profit and efficiency. They think invisible hands will fix everything if the government just backs off.

They, like the democrats, support pre-emptive strikes and the arming of rebels to the detrement of christians in the middle east. It’s stupid and the church doesn’t support this kind of garbage.

How conservatives can eagerly campaign for the king of Wall Street and the Mormon church who supported the bail-outs is beyond me.
Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

“If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions,” Mr. Franc said.

A key measure of each district’s wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.

But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.

Mr. Franc’s study also showed that contrary to the Democrats’ tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, “the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-income districts.”

“I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district,” Mr. Franc said in an interview with The Washington Times.

liveleak.com/view?i=711_1195846131

Wealthy Individuals Voted for Obama: CNN reported about election 2008: “High income voters — those who said they make at least $100,000 a year –went in Obama’s favor, 52 percent to 47 percent.”

Wealthy Counties Voted for Obama: American’s richest county, Loudoun County, Va., voted Obama 54-46, thus being more Democratic than the rest of Va. and the nation (which were both 53% Obama). Fairfax, Va., the nation’s second-wealthiest county, voted 60% Obama.

Wealthy States Voted for Obama: The three wealthiest states — Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey, all voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2010/08/democrats-party-rich/130805#ixzz1oZXy8dOV

Republican party is not the party of the wealthy
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other

Please do NOT campaign on the forums. You may charitably talk about the issues and the news, but try not to talk past each other. Don’t campaign (repeating the same argument over and over again and constantly advocating a candidate and attacking another candidate). This is not a political site.

Also read the forum rules concerning the discussion of politics in my signature before posting.
 
Is it Romney’s energy proposals? More drilling and development of energy sources here in America to increase the supply and help lower the costs?
The price of energy, much like the economy is largely controlled by global forces. The bottom line is that we do not have readily availble the amount of oil necessary to meet demand in this country. There is no quick fix or easy answer. There are no “giant” oil fields on or offshore of Alaska that are waiting to be produced. They have to be discovered and the wildcat sucess ratio is about 20% or so and much less in frontier areas like in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. They have already drilled the biggest and best prospects in many cases and haven’t discovered any commercial fields at this point.

But talk radio or the media mislead people into believing that there are vast resources untapped reserves and that it’s all the governments fault for no development. It isn’t true and it’s always more complicated that right-wing talk radio spin.
 
Threads over 1,000 posts are closed for technical reasons.

Thank you to all who contributed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top