Posted on 02/01/2012 6:47:22 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Standing Athwart History Yelling "Thank You Sir, May I Have Another."
It is days like today that make me thankful I think they all suck. At least I’m thankful I’m in the firmly not Romney camp.
Having told us only Romney was viable (with half-nods to Huntsman and Santorum) and having trotted out Elliot Abrams to smear Newt Gingrich with out of context quotes, even National Review is having trouble defending their candidate today.
This morning Mitt Romney said he wasn’t concerned about the poor. The poor, after all, have food stamps and Medicaid. But don’t worry. If the safety net is broken, Patrician Mitt Romney will fix it so the poor can stay comfortably poor. After all, just look what he did in Massachusetts. The poor can now wait 44 days to get in to see a doctor. Excelsior!
After making sure we all understood the poor were for the Democrats to be worried about, Romney decided to keep digging his hole even bigger. By the end of the day, Jim DeMint had to rebuke him.
Romney, digging his hole deeper, said his remark needed more context. The context, according to Romney, is that we have government programs to keep the poor . . . well . . . poor but comfortable:
We do have a very ample safety net in America, with Medicaid, housing vouchers, food stamps, earned income tax credit. We have a number of ways of helping the poor. And yet my focus and the area that I think is the greatest challenge that the country faces right now is not, is not to focus our effort on how we help the poor as much as to focus our effort on how to help the middle class in America.
Oh, but that’s not all. If you misunderstood patrician Mitt Romney, he trotted out the other New England patrician, John Sununu — the man who advised George H. W. Bush to go with David Souter — to dig the hole even deeper. Sununu told the National Review that their candidate has no intention of changing policies to those that might actually lift the poor out of poverty into the middle class.
“He was saying that we do not need to change policies for them. Same goes for the super-rich, who are fine. It’s the middle class; they’re the ones we need to be aggressive in helping. They’re the ones who’ve taken the brunt of the bad Obama policies of the past three years.”
Note the use of “they’re” in talking about the middle class. They have been hurt most. Not the poor. Not the rich. So much for the GOP condemning class warfare. Romney’s folks are going with it too. Where Obama goes for “fair shares”, Romney wants to focus only on those hurt “most.”
But the coup de grace came late today when, to mitigate the damage, Romney reminded everyone he supports automatic hikes in the minimum wage — a truly conservative position.
The National Review sure does know how to pick them. Glad they’ll be defending him in the general. I’m not sure I’ll waste my time. Sure, I’ll vote for him. But I think I’ll focus on House and Senate races so when the buyers remorse sets in on those who backed Romney we’re not completely screwed down ballot.
Does he realize that “helping the middle class” means getting government off their backs so they can grow the economy back? The middle class doesn’t need more government assistance, they need less government.
Romney also said today that he is for a higher minimum wage. Romney does not understand economics or conservatism.
There is a reason I no longer listen to Erickson when he fills in for Boortz - the so-called ‘logic’ that under pens his radio commentary is so fractured, so tortured it can’t be considered as political commentary. It is what it is - the viewpoint of a zealot. As are most of us are on this website.
Keep your eye on the prizes, folks: beating Zero, expanding the majority in the House, taking control of the Senate.
Today Myth Romno-money becames a caricature.
Now, bring on Newt and let’s rumble.
While I believe as you do...not sure I can understand the animosity against raising the minimum wage as far as inflation is concerned. If we have the minimum wage (which I am against), it must be targeted to the inflation. After all, that seems to be controlled mainly by the Fed and their policies.
Now if you are saying that the minimum wage should not exist in federal policy, I agree. Then there would be no problem with federal management.
There’s usually a back story about what you see on TV:
Did Newt Gingrich Out Brit Hume’s Dead Gay Son?
http://gawker.com/5877207/did-newt-gingrich-out-brit-humes-dead-gay-son
[it must be targeted to the inflation]
Indexing minimum wage to inflation is a positive feedback loop that is inherently explosive. Once you put a few of those policies in place, say hello to Weimar Republic. Granny git your wheelbarrow!
Jesus...we really are screwed...again.
And has anybody really thought about the situation? 2008 redux. Romney loses to McCain, McCain loses to Obama.
2012, Loser McCain endorses loser Romney to lose to Obama.
Hope everyone is happy.
I use to think as you do but am beginning to understand just how the Fed controls the economy. If they control just how much inflation is to occur, how can you believe that wages should remain the same.
Now in reality, it really hurts the private sector the most because as they increase inflation and the benefits are tagged to inflation, only those in the private sector are hurt. It’s rare that private business keeps up with inflation. They may try, but it is usually minor (I can attest to that in my 40 years of private jobs). They do give appropriate benefits due to capability, experience, and performance though - unlike the union controlled jobs.
While I don’t believe in minimum wages or wage control, I have to take into account the actions of our government. It is not pretty.
If you ignore their actions then not only will private sector be damaged but the social network will also fail.
Just saying that inflation hurts all sectors but hurts those on the low end the most. I’m sure that your also realize that. Yes, that includes everyone on a fixed income and everyone on any government benefit. While I can understand anger at that, those folks are in dire straights when inflation occurs.
I have read some of the rumors. But I have seen no facts that Newt had anything to do with anything over the Hume death. Which begs the question if Hume's son was 'gay', would that not be the better fit for that word 'exotic'. I mean look at the Obama administration, how would Hume describe them.
I stopped paying attention to the foxes election night 2004, when the Jon Stewart media of foxes were having orgasms over the 'early' polling data that JFKerry was winning. Michael Barone was the only sane one on Fox that night. That old saying fits, Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Hume was no exception that night or was the lord McCain campaign adviser Crystal.
Talk about egos, they are on parade every day by some of these that throw their fiery darts at Newt.
“If we have the minimum wage (which I am against), it must be targeted to the inflation.”
Why “must?” Not indexing the minimum wage slowly mitigates its bad effects over time. If you can’t repeal it, no-indexation is the next best thing.
Maybe you missed the fact that the inflation is controlled by the Fed. When government is controlling the cost and continues to degrade the benefits...who is to gain?
Okay, that is a silly question - the government and the monitory policy. Those on benefits continue to go down the tubes... Business does benefit because they are not obligated to raise wages...do you see the problem?
“Maybe you missed the fact that the inflation is controlled by the Fed. When government is controlling the cost and continues to degrade the benefits...who is to gain?”
Minimum wage is a bad policy. It hurts people, especially poor and minorities. If the Fed causes inflation, it is at least inflating away one bad policy, so long as the minimum wage is not indexed to inflation. Who benefits? The folks who would be unemployed were the minimum wage to be indexed.
I don’t see why there is any reason to take a bad law and make sure it keeps hurting people as long as possible.
I didn’t miss your point. I just think its a pretty silly point. There are plenty of good arguments against the Fed and its powers that you don’t have to tie this very weak argument to that mast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.