Republican Primary

[rlg94086]

He can’t beat the Mattel candidate. There’s corporate Mitt, blue collar Mitt, and family guy Mitt. Fully posable. You get to pick his outfits and there’s even a space where you can insert your values. Available in all finer stores everywhere. Offer subject to restrictions in CA. Sorry, no returns accepted.

Actually, the only GOP candidate with a posable doll/action figure is Ron Paul.

 

[rlg94086]

Romney is being blasted by Gingrich for his comments. Did he share in my ignorance?

Nope. He shares your mudslinging. He also had some nasty robocalls made in Florida claiming that Romney was trying to force holocaust survivors to eat non-kosher foods.

 

[CMatt25]

Taken out of context.

Romeny “It’s not good being poor”

Ringil, don’t let them get to you with the “taken out of context” line. Nothing is being taken out of context. Romney said he isn’t concerned about the “very poor” because they have a safety net and “IF” it needs fixed, he’ll fix it.

IF??? There is no “if”.

How many “very poor”, Ringil, do you know of, who are feeling very secure long term in the net?

I wonder if Jesus thinks enough is being done for them?

This statement by Romney only reinforces for me that I’m making the right choice in not voting for him for POTUS in the next election, if Romney as expected is the nominee.

 

[rlg94086]

Ringil, don’t let them get to you with the “taken out of context” line. Nothing is being taken out of context. Romney said he isn’t concerned about the “very poor” **because they have a safety net and “IF” it needs fixed, he’ll fix it. **

IF??? There is no “if”.

How many “very poor”, Ringil, do you know of, who are feeling very secure long term in the net?

I wonder if Jesus thinks enough is being done for them?

This statement by Romney only reinforces for me that our choice for POTUS in the next election is the right one if Romney as expected is the nominee.

Please see the bolded portion of your post. They do have a safety net, and he said he would fix it if it needs fixing. That means he CARES about the very poor. That’s why context is important. That he is more concerned with the folks in the middle makes sense. What you, Ringil, and the rest of the mudslingers are doing is dishonest…typical politics. Is that what Jesus would do?

Regarding whether “enough is being done for them,” Jesus was constantly making distinctions between government- funded safety nets at the state and federal levels. I think you’ll find His treatise on the need for the government to create a comprehensive welfare plan somewhere in the second book of Mark.

 

[mlund]

Look like I’m not alone in being stunned after unpacking Romney’s behavior there. Mark Steyn’s good company to keep on these sort of issues:

nationalreview.com/corner/289859/re-what-wrong-guy-mark-steyn

Romney’s is a benevolent patrician’s view of society: The poor are incorrigible, but let’s add a couple more groats to their food stamps and housing vouchers, and they’ll stay quiet. Aside from the fact that that kind of thinking has led the western world to near terminal insolvency, for a candidate whose platitudinous balderdash of a stump speech purports to believe in the most Americanly American America that any American has ever Americanized over, it’s as dismal a vision of permanent trans-generational poverty as any Marxist community organizer with a cozy sinecure on the Acorn board would come up with.

After half-a-century of evidence, what sort of “conservative” offers the poor the Even Greater Society? I don’t know how “electable” Mitt is, but, even if he is, the greater danger, given the emptiness of his campaign to date, is that he’ll be elected with no real mandate for the course correction the Brokest Nation in History urgently needs.

• Marty Lund

 

[Josephene]

Tomorrow is Feast of Presentation of The Lord , 40 days after Christmas and also called Candlemas , representing the light that He is - to show God’s goodness to His
( adopted ) children , in Him , the only Begotten Son , from the goodness of our Eternal Father !

and we have lots to be grateful , for His mercy , who loves and forgive us , even when we try to deny Him , who He is , by supporting those who deny such a truth …

irr.org/mit/huggins-mormon-jesus-satan-brothers.html

Fla., the land that is close to places of the first arrival of the true founding Fathers of these lands , sent here by Divine Proividence , in ships that were named to honor Him and those whom He honored …

• a piece of land, like a candle , or a finger , into the turbulent seas …

pointing to His infinite mercy , like the ocean , that still want to wash away areas of all that might separate us from Him and His truhs …esp. the blaspehemy , that distorts the truth about Him , yet , still claimimg to be called after His Name …

thus , even the so called gaffe of the so called winner , may be in His mercy , to give us a flicker of light, to see that, in one sense , it is The Lord Himself , who is among the poorest , for having made Himself to be so poor , to be one with His children, yet denied who He is …the love and trust that He is owed …

Thus making us ask , what it might be that the so called 'conservatives ’ are trying to conserve - at the risk of intentionally going after someone who seems not capable of really caring /identifying , with the deepest identity of the majority , in this nation !

Just like the millions that were spent should also help to light up - to see how intense the animosity can be , to oppose what is considered as ’ against ’ - which , in the deep and true sense , would be all , who hold truths and values that are not in alignment , yet those are the truths that need to be conserved the most !

Sen .Santorum might still win , by miracle of Providence , if enough wake up , to see that may be with a bit more rapid maturing , in mercy and compassion for the erring and peaceful trust, in God , he could make a good leader , with the help of good suggestions on fianncial matters and some even on foreign policy , from Ron Paul set …

Gingrich ( hope they would nickname him 'ginger root ’ - to cure indigestion , as well as to bring some discomfort to a certain group ) , well , may be he is meant to serve penance , by having to deal with the multitude of problems he would inherit, if he is to lead …

Or , may be Romney would , in His mercy ,recognise fast that he is also very poor , with out the help of God Almighty …thus , to be able to turn to Him, with whole heart , in humility …

Nothing is impossible for God …even Obama can have change of heart enough , to recognise that it is good to allow the nation, to conserve good morals and truths .

and we do need His mercy , in ocean sizes …

here is a country , borrowing from China , who kills off their little ones …to lend to a land with plenty of open land …

a bit of divine justice …and would we be seeing their soldiers , in these lands ,as has been the prophesy of some ( not Church approved or anything ) …

and would we need to complain , if we have gone after those whose patrimony is false promises that are easily evident, if we care to look enough , when we could have chosen some one who seems more familiar and cares more on ways of God , in such matters , from past good experiences of good persons !

May The Stone not be the stumbling stone for us - we, who have been blessed enough , to be a light to others !

P.S - ’ Do unto others …’ - as someone who almost never raises follow up queries, other than to answer same , on what has been posted , would like same from others; if rereading of the post to help clarification does not help , please ignore - possibly not worth the time or effort, to try to clarify furthur .

Do accept that there would be diffrence of opinions but please do not consider lack of response as being just rude .

Thanks !

God bless !

 

[CMatt25]

Please see the bolded portion of your post. They do have a safety net, and he said he would fix it if it needs fixing. That means he CARES about the very poor. That’s why context is important.

Actually Mitt was in the media today and I caught him saying to read his whole sentence. So I did. And I didn’t find the context much better. I don’t know of many poor who are very comfortable in the present safety net. If anything it needs strengthened. So even in context just by him saying “if” it needs fixed, I believe Romney completely blew this one.

 

[CMatt25]

I think most underwhelmed Obama voters will stay home and not vote at all.

I myself would never stay home. I did consider a minor 3rd party candidate. The Greens I know usually run a candidate in my state along with others. But being here has reinforced to me that I can not do that.

 

[rlg94086]

Actually Mitt was in the media today and I caught him saying to read his whole sentence. So I did. And I didn’t find the context much better. I don’t know of many poor who are very comfortable in the present safety net. If anything it needs strengthened. So even in context just by him saying “if” it needs fixed, I believe Romney completely blew this one.

That means a lot coming from an Obama supporter.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ringil, don’t let them get to you with the “taken out of context” line. Nothing is being taken out of context. Romney said he isn’t concerned about the “very poor” because they have a safety net and “IF” it needs fixed, he’ll fix it.

IF??? There is no “if”.

How many “very poor”, Ringil, do you know of, who are feeling very secure long term in the net?

I wonder if Jesus thinks enough is being done for them?

This statement by Romney only reinforces for me that I’m making the right choice in not voting for him for POTUS in the next election, if Romney as expected is the nominee.

One might possibly be forgiven for having concluded long before now that some will vote for Obama no matter what any Repub candidate says, good bad, in context or out. Right?

But, and just to view things with a little clarity, one cannot rightly accuse the Dems of caring a fig for the truly poor either. They had total power for two years. They could have passed anything they wanted, and did. And so, they passed the middle class (upper middle really) welfare program called “cash for clunkers” which gave tax credits to the few who can afford brand new cars, and destroyed those upon which the poor depend…the clunkers, thus making the remaining clunkers harder to afford. But if one is driven about in limousines and flies to the watering places of the earth in AF One, one might not have noticed that the poor do, indeed, drive clunkers. And if one spends one’s time hobnobbing with billionaires, one would not hear a poor person tell how glad he is to have a clunker.

And Obamacare, which will remove a number of the working poor from employer paid health insurance and put them on Medicaid, what does that do for the truly poor? Well, it swells the ranks of those who will be on Medicaid at a time when it’s already hard to get doctors to take Medicaid patients and whose organizations impose quotas on doctors taking Medicaid patients. And, of course, upping the reimbursement rates for “well care” makes it even worse for a sick poor person to get treatment except, of course, in the ERs which will become even more burdened than they are now. But perhaps the poor will benefit socially by having a lot more company in the ERs than they did previously.

Well, and then there are the disabled poor…the ones on SSI…the ones who cannot help themselves no matter what. Did they get an improvement in their benefits; about $600month? Nope. Not a farthing. But the government did loan $2 billion to Brazil’s oil company in which George Soros has heavily invested, in order to drill for oil off the Brazilian coast while oil workers in the U.S. are thrown out of work to join the “poor”. And, of course, billions were poured into AIG so it could bail out politically connected Goldman Sachs 100% on its bad mortgage investments. Then too, it helped bail out the gilt-edged pension plans of union workers. It did do that.

Well, and those unwed mothers we have heard so much Dem pitying about. Because of mandates, their cost of “child only” policies has more than doubled. But their abortions will be free. Obama did do that for them.

Now, those seniors. Some of them are well off, you know. But some aren’t. Some can’t afford supplemental insurance and totally depend on Medicare. But Obama has promised to cut half a trillion dollars out of Medicare. No, I don’t want to hear that old saw about how they’re going to do it by “cutting waste and fraud”. I have heard that one since I was a kid, and it’s never true. No, they’re going to pay doctors to once a year tell seniors about how they might want to end their own lives by refusing treatment if they are old and ill. Well, and they have improved “well care” reimbursement at the expense of treating chronic illnesses, so doctors can treat people who don’t need it and dump the sick. (Poor people very often have chronic illnesses, especially the developmentally disabled, but who cares?)
Now, those seniors who can barely afford supplemental insurance policies will also have the benefit of seeing their premiums go up because Obama has ordered that “well woman care”, which includes contraceptives, sterilization and abortion, will be absolutely free. Women of working age, rich or poor, will have free abortifacients and can get their tubes tied for free, but women who can’t work anymore will have to pay more to get treatment or meds for their endless problems from diabetes or the hundred other things from which the elderly often suffer, if they can get treated at all.

Obama has promised that utility bills will, under him, “skyrocket”. But the poor don’t need heat, light, air conditioning or refrigeration. Nor do they need to pay for gas to get to work. So, no harm done to the poor there, right? But he did have pity on the Solyndra billionaire and Nancy Pelosi’s nephew and throw hundreds of millions at them on “green energy” failures. And who is to say billionaires can’t also feel “poor” at times?

Romney might care about the poor and he might not. The proof is in the doing, and Repubs are not famous for aiding the poor. Oh, there was that earned income credit thing of Reagan’s and Bush’s Part B, but those were not all that directed at the very poorest. But let’s face it. Repubs are almost as bad at neglecting the truly poor as the Dems are, and should be ashamed of it. Neither party has a good claim to “helping the poor”. But when it comes to reputation, the Dem party is like a profligate heir living off his patrimony and leaving his children penniless. The Dem party once really did care about the poor, and act on it. But that was fifty years ago. I think the “statute of limitations” on claiming to care about the poor has long since run. But they still claim it, without the slightest merit to the claim. Unfortunately, some actually believe it.

 

[CMatt25]

One might possibly be forgiven for having concluded long before now that some will vote for Obama no matter what any Repub candidate says, good bad, in context or out. Right?

But, and just to view things with a little clarity, one cannot rightly accuse the Dems of caring a fig for the truly poor either. They had total power for two years. They could have passed anything they wanted, and did. And so, they passed the middle class (upper middle really) welfare program called “cash for clunkers” which gave tax credits to the few who can afford brand new cars, and destroyed those upon which the poor depend…the clunkers, thus making the remaining clunkers harder to afford. But if one is driven about in limousines and flies to the watering places of the earth in AF One, one might not have noticed that the poor do, indeed, drive clunkers. And if one spends one’s time hobnobbing with billionaires, one would not hear a poor person tell how glad he is to have a clunker.

And Obamacare, which will remove a number of the working poor from employer paid health insurance and put them on Medicaid, what does that do for the truly poor? Well, it swells the ranks of those who will be on Medicaid at a time when it’s already hard to get doctors to take Medicaid patients and whose organizations impose quotas on doctors taking Medicaid patients. And, of course, upping the reimbursement rates for “well care” makes it even worse for a sick poor person to get treatment except, of course, in the ERs which will become even more burdened than they are now. But perhaps the poor will benefit socially by having a lot more company in the ERs than they did previously.

Well, and then there are the disabled poor…the ones on SSI…the ones who cannot help themselves no matter what. Did they get an improvement in their benefits; about $600month? Nope. Not a farthing. But the government did loan $2 billion to Brazil’s oil company in which George Soros has heavily invested, in order to drill for oil off the Brazilian coast while oil workers in the U.S. are thrown out of work to join the “poor”. And, of course, billions were poured into AIG so it could bail out politically connected Goldman Sachs 100% on its bad mortgage investments. Then too, it helped bail out the gilt-edged pension plans of union workers. It did do that.

Well, and those unwed mothers we have heard so much Dem pitying about. Because of mandates, their cost of “child only” policies has more than doubled. But their abortions will be free. Obama did do that for them.

Now, those seniors. Some of them are well off, you know. But some aren’t. Some can’t afford supplemental insurance and totally depend on Medicare. But Obama has promised to cut half a trillion dollars out of Medicare. No, I don’t want to hear that old saw about how they’re going to do it by “cutting waste and fraud”. I have heard that one since I was a kid, and it’s never true. No, they’re going to pay doctors to once a year tell seniors about how they might want to end their own lives by refusing treatment if they are old and ill. Well, and they have improved “well care” reimbursement at the expense of treating chronic illnesses, so doctors can treat people who don’t need it and dump the sick. (Poor people very often have chronic illnesses, especially the developmentally disabled, but who cares?)
Now, those seniors who can barely afford supplemental insurance policies will also have the benefit of seeing their premiums go up because Obama has ordered that “well woman care”, which includes contraceptives, sterilization and abortion, will be absolutely free. Women of working age, rich or poor, will have free abortifacients and can get their tubes tied for free, but women who can’t work anymore will have to pay more to get treatment or meds for their endless problems from diabetes or the hundred other things from which the elderly often suffer, if they can get treated at all.

Obama has promised that utility bills will, under him, “skyrocket”. But the poor don’t need heat, light, air conditioning or refrigeration. Nor do they need to pay for gas to get to work. So, no harm done to the poor there, right? But he did have pity on the Solyndra billionaire and Nancy Pelosi’s nephew and throw hundreds of millions at them on “green energy” failures. And who is to say billionaires can’t also feel “poor” at times?

Romney might care about the poor and he might not. The proof is in the doing, and Repubs are not famous for aiding the poor. Oh, there was that earned income credit thing of Reagan’s and Bush’s Part B, but those were not all that directed at the very poorest. But let’s face it. Repubs are almost as bad at neglecting the truly poor as the Dems are, and should be ashamed of it. Neither party has a good claim to “helping the poor”. But when it comes to reputation, the Dem party is like a profligate heir living off his patrimony and leaving his children penniless. The Dem party once really did care about the poor, and act on it. But that was fifty years ago. I think the “statute of limitations” on claiming to care about the poor has long since run. But they still claim it, without the slightest merit to the claim. Unfortunately, some actually believe it.

If this wasn’t a thread about Republicans, I could comment a lot more about your comments about Obama and the Democrats. So I’ll have to suffice to say that even Romney or some other Republican if elected and even if the Republicans retain the House and take the Senate but by less than 60 rock solid firm votes on every issue, or otherwise do not have veto proof numbers, they might not have total control either.

 

[ishii]

One might possibly be forgiven for having concluded long before now that some will vote for Obama no matter what any Repub candidate says, good bad, in context or out. Right?

The Dem party once really did care about the poor, and act on it. But that was fifty years ago. I think the “statute of limitations” on claiming to care about the poor has long since run. But they still claim it, without the slightest merit to the claim. Unfortunately, some actually believe it.

Excellent points in your post, Ridgerunner. But Democrat catholics will cling to the illusion that their party cares about the very poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they care about is power. Obama cares more about lining the pockets of failed Green energy companies with hundreds of millions of dollars - which then gets donated to his campaign. Are the liberal Democrat catholics some of the most gullible people on earth? I have little hope that the hardened, ideological liberal left catholics will abandon Obama even though its increasingly obvious that voting for him is morally wrong. However, I have some hope that Obama’s recent assault on the Catholic church might wake up some of the more moderate, complacent catholics who voted for “hope and change” in 2008. If enough of those voters abandon Obama, it could be a big difference - especially in swing states with large numbes of catholics.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

If this wasn’t a thread about Republicans, I could comment a lot more about your comments about Obama and the Democrats. So I’ll have to suffice to say that even Romney or some other Republican if elected and even if the Republicans retain the House and take the Senate but by less than 60 rock solid firm votes on every issue, or otherwise do not have veto proof numbers, they might not have total control either.

Seems like you’re taking the easy way out by crying “off topic.” I don’t think anyone will mind if you attempt to defend Obama and the Democrats from the accusations made in Ridgerunners post. I would love to see you justify your support for Obama’s hundreds of millions of dollars to failed Green companies and his recent assault on the Catholic church - all the while helping the “very poor”.

Ishii

 

[He_Man]

Romney is being blasted by Gingrich for his comments. Did he share in my ignorance?

He’s running against him. His job isn’t to help him out. When you run for president, feel free to lie and misrepresent. Until then, don’t. On Catholic Answers, it just makes you not worth debating with, which is why I am not sure why any bothers trying to convince you.

You know what he said in full, and he even referenced the 95%+ that need real help. But feel free to make up falsehoods in an attempt to smear candidates. I am guessing you think Obama ACTUALLY believes there are 57 states too?

 

[He_Man]

Actually Mitt was in the media today and I caught him saying to read his whole sentence. So I did. And I didn’t find the context much better. I don’t know of many poor who are very comfortable in the present safety net. If anything it needs strengthened. So even in context just by him saying “if” it needs fixed, I believe Romney completely blew this one.

Saying it was a foolish thing to say from a soundbite point of view makes you credible. Pretending he was insinuating he could care less about a starving populace and ignoring what else he said makes you someone like Ringil. Choose the former if you want to be taken seriously in a debate. Romney has enough things for Obama fanatics to chide him on, if you so choose.

 

[LovePatience]

The Democratic does not care about the very poor at an ideal level, but it certainly cares about them more than the Republicans. There are programs in government to help the very poor such as child protective services.

From a gov website:

Child Protective Services Division investigates reports of abuse and neglect of children

The Child Protective Services Division investigates reports of abuse and neglect of children. It also:

* Provides services to children and families in their own homes;
* Places children in foster care;
* Provides services to help youth in foster care make the transition to adulthood; and
* Places children in adoptive homes.

Republicans are striving to cut taxes. Well, how will we pay for these programs to protect poor children? Perry Repeatedly Cut Child Abuse Prevention Funding As Texas Battled Rising Levels Of Abuse thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/19/347115/perry-child-abuse-funds/

A disturbing new report reveals that child abuse in the United States has reached “epidemic” levels, with one child dying every five hours from abuse or neglect. A recent congressional report estimates that some 2,500 children were killed as a result of maltreatment in 2009, and America has the worst child abuse record in the industrialized world.

And Texas has one of the worst child abuse records in the country, BBC noted. In Texas last year, 10.2 of every 1,000 children suffered confirmed abuse or neglect, and children younger than age 6 were the most common abuse victims — 39 percent were between the ages of 1 and 3.

But as governor, Rick Perry (R-TX) has repeatedly slashed funding for child abuse prevention. To balance a whopping $27 billion budget deficit, Perry choose to make draconian cuts to social services instead of raising any taxes or dipping into the state’s Rainy Day fund. Under the budget put forward by Texas Republicans, the state will have to lay off 565 caseworkers who investigate child abuse. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services will see a loss of nearly $40 million.

Child abuse prevention advocates warned that the number of abused children would increase if Perry approved a 32 percent funding cut to several key prevention programs that have been proven to reduce abuse. They point out that increased abuse actually ends up costing Texas more in coming years. The direct and indirect costs of child maltreatment in Texas surpassed $6.3 billion in 2007.

Abused children are more likely to require above-average levels of cash assistance, subsidized health care, house assistance, and other forms of welfare when they grow up, a state council reports. More at-risk youth may go to jail and drop out of school, and more families break down if there is no intervention — yet self-proclaimed “pro-family” Republicans are willing to put more children at risk to avoid raising taxes on cigarettes.

And the “low tax, small government” state model Perry brags about is largely responsible for Texas’ shameful record. Michael Petit, the president of Every Child Matters, explains that child abuse is worse in states where the government is less involved in children’s lives. For instance, children in Texas “are four times more likely to be uninsured, four times more likely to be incarcerated, and nearly twice as likely to die from abuse and neglect” as children in Vermont.

When Perry took office in 2001, the child abuse rate was 7.2 per 1,000 children in Texas. In 2003, Texas Republicans led by Perry enacted state budget cuts that shredded Texas’ Child Protective Services system. Not coincidentally, child abuse rates rose between 2003 and 2007 in Texas, even as they decreased significantly nationwide. thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/19/347115/perry-child-abuse-funds/

 

[bbarrick8383]

Republicans are striving to cut taxes.

Tax cuts do not equal less revenue, nor does tax increases equal more revenue.

Everything under the sun is already taxed. If the government wants more revenue, promote a healthy capitalist economy with lots of rich greedy folk.

 

[Wiljo2050]

Agreed. The media lies a lot.

So what you are saying is Mitt did not make this statement and the media is lying.I personally heard him say this! Perhaps it was a trick hidden microphone!Maybe it was Mitts Evil cousin! I guess you can call me a liar! I am not the media and I frankly dont care what you call Me.I heard and seen it with my own eyes and ears.Why do you keep defending these pundits whose main purpose is not to defend the gospels.Actions speak louder than words.just because someone says they are a man of God,doesnt mean nothing."you will know them by their fruits!

 

[He_Man]

So striving for fiscal solvency, in the hopes of preventing a financial collapse, which would increase the number of poor people, is somehow heartless?

I swear, some people really do believe we have unlimited money. We have become a bloated society, and we need to make some serious cuts. Increasing taxes, even at record rates, isn’t going to stave off this sort of collapse (setting aside the ethics involved in ridiculously high taxation).

Do you think increasing taxes on small buisiness is going to somehow help them hire more people?

And with all the abuse and waste by the government, you actually think the tax money will go to fund existing programs of merit? It always ends up going to new programs, leaving the old ones insolvent and broke as always.

And since 2006, we’ve had a Democratically controlled congress for 4 years, and a Democratic president for 4. You can talk theory all you want, but practically speaking, HOW has anyone, poor included, seen their life get better? Everyone is doing worse. Don’t talk to me about programs and theory - what tangibly is better for the poor?

 

[He_Man]

So what you are saying is Mitt did not make this statement and the media is lying.I personally heard him say this! Perhaps it was a trick hidden microphone!Maybe it was Mitts Evil cousin! I guess you can call me a liar! I am not the media and I frankly dont care what you call Me.I heard and seen it with my own eyes and ears.Why do you keep defending these pundits whose main purpose is not to defend the gospels.Actions speak louder than words.just because someone says they are a man of God,doesnt mean nothing."you will know them by their fruits!

So you heard him say he doesn’t care about rich either, and is most concerned about the 95%+ in the middle who need the most help?