Republican Primary

[Alan55]

Obviously not, but the quote (taken out of context) is going to appear in an anti-Mitt ad sooner rather than later.

Actually, Mitt’s comments about the very poor and Mitt’s perception of the adequacy of the safety net to care for them is something he’s said numerous times in the past. He clarified that if the safety net was broken, he’d fix it – but his policies and those of the Republican party would further erode the safety net for the poor through additional cuts.

The news media have not taken those remarks out of context at all. His comments and their context is clear: Mitt has no clue how the very poor live. If he thinks that the safety net meets the needs of the very poor, he lives in a fantasy world that bears no resemblance to the real world. His comments were callous and out of touch, and it was right for the media to call him on them.

 

[Carlan]

See what light? That supporting taking other peoples money to support the pooroffsets support of unrestricted taqxpayer funded abortion on demand?. The Democrat party stands in direct oppostion to nearly all the core moral teachings of the Catholic Church. They have so embraced the culture of death tha even vatican officials have commented on it. So please spare us the “see the light” nonsense.

Please stop the insinuations about members of the opposition as all standing in opposition of most Catholic core moral values(it is not true and you know it.Their platform is not any more perfect than the platform of the Republican Party. We are all seiners and you gotta know by now there is more than one very evil moral issue to weight in the whole of it.
I never hear you or others here mention and get up in arms about the neglect of the poor mother in the projects of this country and her babe’s health and welfare. I suppose you are going to tell me what your Mr Romney said yesterday ," shan’t be worrying out for them much, after all there is a safety net to take care of them"and i suppose his thinking would likely add ‘the poor buggers’…
Peace, Carlan

 

[Monte_RCMS]

We’ve been down that road before. We cut taxes on the supposedly wealthy job creators. They were called the Bush tax cuts. And we saw the result. Jobs weren’t created. Why anyone would want to go back to the failed Republican policies of the Bush Administration that got us into the mess in the first place is beyond me. It’s only led to the rich gettting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the middle class getting the shaft. Under such a Republican economic policy of tax cuts for the wealthy, something trickled down on the latter two but it sure wasn’t jobs. Thankfully we’ve finally seen some signs of improvement but the mess created was so bad, we still have a long ways to go. Now maybe if the wealthy job creators were willing to invest more in America and in American workers and perhaps take just a little less for themselves that would help.

Under President George W. Bush, unemployment was down around 5%.

Which is as close to full employment as is possible to get.

Under President Obama, we’re looking at unemployment at upwards of 10%.

zerohedge.com/news/latest-congressional-budget-outlook-2012-2022-released

Excerpt:

But here is the kicker: “Had that portion of the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 that is attributable to neither the aging of the baby boomers nor the downturn in the business cycle (on the basis of the experience in previous downturns) not occurred, the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2011 would have been about 1¼ percentage points higher than the actual rate of 8.7 percent” translation:** CBO just admitted that the BLS numbers are bogus and real unemployment is 10%. **

The government’s own data shows U-6 at 15.2%

But we need to see what “adjustments” they intend to use or correct for.

bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

 

[Monte_RCMS]

uth.tumblr.com/post/185310851/teenage-jobless-rate-reaches-record-high-pity

Teenage jobless rate reaches record high.

bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm

Interesting reading, because of the spin that the BLS tried to put on the data.

Nevertheless: [excerpt]
**
"This year, the share of young people who were employed in July was 48.8 percent, the lowest July rate on record for the series, which began in 1948. "**

and:

"The labor force participation rate for all youth–the proportion of the population 16
to 24 years old working or looking for work–was 59.5 percent in July, the lowest July
rate on record. "

and this … buried at the end:

"Among major demographic groups, unemployment rates were lower than a year earlier for young men (18.3 percent) and Asians (15.3 percent), while jobless rates were little changed for young women (17.8 percent), whites (15.9 percent), blacks (31.0 percent), and Hispanics (20.1 percent). (See table 2.)"

The spin is unreal.

But the numbers are shocking!

Here is all the data for your slicing and dicing statistical analysis pleasure:

bls.gov/news.release/youth.t02.htm

 

[redeemersmith]

Under President George W. Bush, unemployment was down around 5%.

Which is as close to full employment as is possible to get.

Under President Obama, we’re looking at unemployment at upwards of 10%.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/latest-congressional-budget-outlook-2012-2022-released

I thought it was interesting that I found an article written by a “Tyler Durden” to make sense! Thanks for sharing

 

[SamH]

Please stop the insinuations about members of the opposition as all standing in opposition of most Catholic core moral values(it is not true and you know it.

Carlan please stop the insinuations about members of the opposition as all standing in opposition of most Catholic core moral values

 

[ringil]

Actually I prefer the one where St. Paul says let him who will not work, not eat. .

You know who else said that? General Tojo regarding treatment of POW’s during WWII.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

You know who else said that? General Tojo regarding treatment of POW’s during WWII.

 

[ringil]

The news media have not taken those remarks out of context at all. His comments and their context is clear: Mitt has no clue how the very poor live. If he thinks that the safety net meets the needs of the very poor, he lives in a fantasy world that bears no resemblance to the real world. His comments were callous and out of touch, and it was right for the media to call him on them.

Hey, what do you want? Romney did say “I know it’s not good to be poor.”

Now THAT’S empathy!!

 

[rlg94086]

Their platform is not any more perfect than the platform of the Republican Party.

Technically, you are not correct. Yes, neither platform is “perfect,” but you used the words “any more.” Since the Democratic Party platform clearly supports intrinsic evils like abortion and “gay marriage,” they are, indeed, less perfect. The Republican Party platform differs from the Church on some prudential matters, but not on any instrinsic evils.

Differing with the Church on prudential matters is acceptable. For example, applying subsidiarity, most Catholic conservatives favor little or no federal and/or state involvement on charitable activities, which is completely in line with Catholic social teaching. Those who favor some federal and/or state involvement are also in line with Catholic social teaching. Those who favor large, bureaucratic involvement on the federal level are not in line with Catholic social teaching. I can point out where teaching makes it very clear, if you like. I have, as have others, many times though, so sadly the points are ignored…sort of like the way the Democratic Party’s stances on intrinsic evil are ignored…

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, Mitt’s comments about the very poor and Mitt’s perception of the adequacy of the safety net to care for them is something he’s said numerous times in the past. He clarified that if the safety net was broken, he’d fix it – but his policies and those of the Republican party would further erode the safety net for the poor through additional cuts.

The news media have not taken those remarks out of context at all. His comments and their context is clear: Mitt has no clue how the very poor live. If he thinks that the safety net meets the needs of the very poor, he lives in a fantasy world that bears no resemblance to the real world. His comments were callous and out of touch, and it was right for the media to call him on them.

You are making an assumption that everyone agrees on what level of “needs” have to be fulfilled by the government as a safety net.

The media, as are you and other CAF members, are applying your idea of a safety net, which is cradle-to-grave socialism. That isn’t **care **for the very poor. It is an affront to human dignity.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually, Mitt’s comments about the very poor and Mitt’s perception of the adequacy of the safety net to care for them is something he’s said numerous times in the past. He clarified that if the safety net was broken, he’d fix it – but his policies and those of the Republican party would further erode the safety net for the poor through additional cuts.

The news media have not taken those remarks out of context at all. His comments and their context is clear: Mitt has no clue how the very poor live. If he thinks that the safety net meets the needs of the very poor, he lives in a fantasy world that bears no resemblance to the real world. His comments were callous and out of touch, and it was right for the media to call him on them.

And while Obama had total power in this country, why did he do nothing for the very poor? Indeed, some of his actions actually hurt the very poor. One can call Romney callous because of his words, and that’s a possibly correct speculation. But one can call Obama callous because of his actions and that’s an established fact.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The effect of a tax increase isn’t simple at all. People respond to changes in their taxes; it has been proven over and over again that increasing taxes doesn’t necessarily increase revenue, in fact, it’s usually just the opposite.

I agree, determining the revenue effects of a tax increase or a tax decrease are never going to be simple, no matter what snake oil those on the right or the left are trying to sell. For example, consider the following quote in 2006:

“Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that,”

Now, what kind of person would make a statement like that, must be some leftwing guy? No, it is a former Bush economist who is at the American Enterprise Institute, not a significant hotbed of liberalism.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121.html

 

[ProVobis]

The effect of a tax increase isn’t simple at all. People respond to changes in their taxes; it has been proven over and over again that increasing taxes doesn’t necessarily increase revenue, in fact, it’s usually just the opposite.

Monte, for the last couple of years, we have been living under Bush tax cuts AND Omaba tax cuts and tax credits. Where are the tax increases? Chances of any tax increase are about as great as Bernanke increasing interest rates. Ain’t going to happen anytime soon.

 

[qui_est_ce]

See what light? That supporting taking other peoples money to support the pooroffsets support of unrestricted taqxpayer funded abortion on demand?. The Democrat party stands in direct oppostion to nearly all the core moral teachings of the Catholic Church. They have so embraced the culture of death tha even vatican officials have commented on it. So please spare us the “see the light” nonsense.

I personally wondered if Carlan had seen the light yet, but obviously she has not.

 

[bbarrick8383]

You know who else said that? General Tojo regarding treatment of POW’s during WWII.

So are you comparing St. Paul with Tojo?

 

[rlg94086]

So are you comparing St. Paul with Tojo?

It’s an interesting argument for a Catholic to make, isn’t it?

 

[ringil]

It’s an interesting argument for a Catholic to make, isn’t it?

I am comparing the cold way this biblical quote is thrown around by conservatives with the cold natured way Tojo expressed his sentiments aimed at those he had little regard for.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I am comparing the cold way this biblical quote is thrown around by conservatives with the cold natured way Tojo expressed his sentiments aimed at those he had little regard for.

So St. Paul wasn’t cold about it?

 

[ringil]

So St. Paul wasn’t cold about it?

I don’t know what St. Paul was about it, but I know in what spirit Conservatives say it and in what spirit Tojo said it.