Mitt Romney makes 14 billion dollar gaffe. Does Mitt Romney have an understanding of what the government pays for?
Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru
2012/06/13 12:47:25
|
|
|||||
|
15 votes
|
|
52% | |||
|
14 votes
|
|
48% | |||
Mitt Romney was only off by billions of dollars when he said Tuesday that the federal government doesn't pay for police officers, firefighters and teachers.
Trying to counter criticism from the White House, Romney argued that
it was "completely absurd" to say he would cut the hiring of such civil
servants because the federal government plays no part in those
decisions.
"That's a very strange accusation," Romney said on "Fox &
Friends." "Of course, teachers and firemen and policemen are hired at
the local level and also by states. The federal government doesn't pay
for teachers, firefighters or policemen. So obviously that is completely
absurd."
Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/mitt-romn...
Top Opinion
-
Chris - The Rowdy One! #187 2012/06/13 12:54:20Yes, the 14 billion dollar oversight was understandable.
the state of NH does offer some sort of additional funding, but every dollar spent requires the Town and School District Boards to look their neighbors in the eye and tell them exactly how every dollar is spent.
we use Title 1 funds to fund worthy (small) projects. IDEA costs drive nearly 25% of our $60M budget. No Child Left Behind has inordinate control over our curriculum, to be sure, and a measurable hit on the budget.
her ein NH, we keep our heads down and try and get eh job done...
thing is, if he just reduced the repatriation of overseas profits from 35% (which locks the money overseas) to 11 or 12%, that would bring $1-2T back in economic activity that wouldn't be coming from gov't spending. PLUS it'd put somewhere between $100-200B in one time tax revenue into our coffers.
same with the $2T parked by our ongoing capital strike. drop the capital gains tax rate to 10% for instant growth. 5% for bigger growth.
there's more than one way to skin a cat...
NCLB should have control over the curriculum. If your state doesn't like it, they can forgo the federal dollars they get for educational purposes.
You see how that works? Yeah, the Government has a hand in keeping teachers employed. In NH, just like everywhere else.
taxing borrowing or printing money to pay for 'infrastructure jobs' is a horrible waste of money in the name of 'stimulus'.
we've spent $7T since the bubble busted and we're stuck in this pernicious, anemic 'recovery.' and we're on a slide to another recession 1Q13.
maybe its news to you, but things REALLY suck.
really? that's all we have to do to get out from under NCLB? no. nobody gets out from under NCLB -well- up until now when the Obama administration DoE is writing waivers for those states that follow federal education rules-. NCLB REQUIRES special ed kids to be just as 'proficient' in things like math and english as their normal classmate. that's how STUPID it is. it has nothing to do with federal funding and everything to do with federal mandates.
my district gets roughly 3M dollars from the federal gov't. it costs us nearly $20M to comply with all the mandates. if i could get out from under federal rules by rejecting federal funds, i'd do it in a heartbeat.
Borrowing in order to actually put millions to work so that they can become productive members in the economy again, isn't a dumb idea. It's one that's been used for at least the last 40 years.
When 4. 3 million jobs and going in 3 years is "anemic" recovery, I'm not sure what to tell you. How many jobs should we have be now in your opinion? Double that? How would that be done? I'm sure you've got some answers on that.
I'd love to hear them.
Yes, that's all you have to do to get out from NCLB. You refuse their funds and you'll not be stuck under their regulations. It's written into the act, as far as I know. It's that simple.
By the way, are all special ed kids incapable of doing math and speaking/reading English? I never heard any of that from the special needs teachers in NYC. Interesting.
Well, that's it. Don't except federal funds and you won't have to follow their mandates. I don't believe that's on a local level, though, but a state level. You should know better than I do.
borrowing printing and taxing, in a recession, are short term tactics. we've been doing it, and failing, now for 4+ years. how much longer before you realize those tactics HAVE failed?
those 'job creation' numbers come out of the White House. it doesn't take into account WHAT those jobs are. part time, shared jobs, underemployed etc. worse, long term unemployment is dragging on so long that those that exceeded their 99 weeks of coverage and fall off the back side no longer count as unemployed. they don't count at all. if you look at the employment participation rate, somewhere between 2 and 8 million jobs no longer exist.
yeah. its anemic. 40% of the wealth of America is gone. normally, the steepness into a recession is matched by a just as steep climb out of the recession. we've seen no such climb, and any improvement that we have seen can be attributed to a dangerously easy money policy.
ummm. no. that's not what you have to do to get out from under NCLB. at my last count, 14 states went so far as to beg for 'waivers' from Obama's DoEducation. those waivers REQUIRE compliance with other, newer, 'federal' education standards...
no. not all special ed kids are so damaged. i'm talking about the ones that ...
borrowing printing and taxing, in a recession, are short term tactics. we've been doing it, and failing, now for 4+ years. how much longer before you realize those tactics HAVE failed?
those 'job creation' numbers come out of the White House. it doesn't take into account WHAT those jobs are. part time, shared jobs, underemployed etc. worse, long term unemployment is dragging on so long that those that exceeded their 99 weeks of coverage and fall off the back side no longer count as unemployed. they don't count at all. if you look at the employment participation rate, somewhere between 2 and 8 million jobs no longer exist.
yeah. its anemic. 40% of the wealth of America is gone. normally, the steepness into a recession is matched by a just as steep climb out of the recession. we've seen no such climb, and any improvement that we have seen can be attributed to a dangerously easy money policy.
ummm. no. that's not what you have to do to get out from under NCLB. at my last count, 14 states went so far as to beg for 'waivers' from Obama's DoEducation. those waivers REQUIRE compliance with other, newer, 'federal' education standards...
no. not all special ed kids are so damaged. i'm talking about the ones that are PROFOUNDLY special ed. those kids TOO must be 'proficient'. that's why its called 'no child left behind.'
try getting out from under federal rules by refusing their cash. you'd have suits flying from every IDEA kid who's parents disagree. we're trapped with those monsters. and all the red tape they bring.
the cost to educate kids IS affordable. the overhead appended by the federal gov't needs to be addressed.
Yes, those job creation numbers come out of the White House. Have they ever show what kind of jobs they are? If you actually looked at the raw numbers for employment rate in the country, it was at 66 percent for the majority of the decade and now it's at 63.8 percent. It was at 65.7 percent when Obama took office. How this is a slide into the netherworld, I don't know. It fell less than two percent. Unemployment is up by less than a percent. This is in the face of a brutal recession. You're acting like that's not good enough...in three years.
No, it's not anemic. 40 percent of the NET WORTH of Americans IS GONE. Less people own houses and property now. Property values have dropped as a reaction to that. How that's Obama's fault is beyond me, but please do tell.
Yes, you can opt out of NCLB, and it was BUSH that put in those crazy regulations you're talking about, not Obama. You want proof, I'm sure:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politic...
And, 19 states this year got waivers GRANTED, so far. You'd like me to prove that, too, I'm sure:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...
So, why is it tha...
Yes, those job creation numbers come out of the White House. Have they ever show what kind of jobs they are? If you actually looked at the raw numbers for employment rate in the country, it was at 66 percent for the majority of the decade and now it's at 63.8 percent. It was at 65.7 percent when Obama took office. How this is a slide into the netherworld, I don't know. It fell less than two percent. Unemployment is up by less than a percent. This is in the face of a brutal recession. You're acting like that's not good enough...in three years.
No, it's not anemic. 40 percent of the NET WORTH of Americans IS GONE. Less people own houses and property now. Property values have dropped as a reaction to that. How that's Obama's fault is beyond me, but please do tell.
Yes, you can opt out of NCLB, and it was BUSH that put in those crazy regulations you're talking about, not Obama. You want proof, I'm sure:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politic...
And, 19 states this year got waivers GRANTED, so far. You'd like me to prove that, too, I'm sure:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...
So, why is it that you can't get out of NCLB, now? I don't know. Everybody else doesn't seem to have a problem doing it. You might have to wait in line, but it's coming, if that's what you want.
when the economy is fully functional, everyone is employed. you don't focus on poor and middle class. you don't focus on rich.
the WH is a source of politics. not economic information.
it was 67+%, now its 63%. what that means is that 4% of all jobs vanished. if you deal in round numbers and say employment is an even 200 million, that means 5 MILLION jobs are gone. if you further consider that those that have used p their 99 weeks of unemployment, and still don't have a job, are no longer considered unemployed per DOL statistics. they don't count as anything. if you look at unemployment 'aging', the percentage of long term unemployed is increasing steadily.
its not good enough. real unemployed -not the 'official rate' is somewhere around 12%.
this is disastrous.
40% of that wealth is gone AND the recovery is anemic. the busting bubble is not his fault. his claim that he had the answers is wrong. or he's lying. in either case, he's not getting it done.
NCLB was Teddy Kennedy's wet dream in the early 1990s, but couldn't get it passed under Clinton. it passed under Bush in a fit of bipartisanship and was an awful mistake. the only way to opt out is to get a waiver, but...
when the economy is fully functional, everyone is employed. you don't focus on poor and middle class. you don't focus on rich.
the WH is a source of politics. not economic information.
it was 67+%, now its 63%. what that means is that 4% of all jobs vanished. if you deal in round numbers and say employment is an even 200 million, that means 5 MILLION jobs are gone. if you further consider that those that have used p their 99 weeks of unemployment, and still don't have a job, are no longer considered unemployed per DOL statistics. they don't count as anything. if you look at unemployment 'aging', the percentage of long term unemployed is increasing steadily.
its not good enough. real unemployed -not the 'official rate' is somewhere around 12%.
this is disastrous.
40% of that wealth is gone AND the recovery is anemic. the busting bubble is not his fault. his claim that he had the answers is wrong. or he's lying. in either case, he's not getting it done.
NCLB was Teddy Kennedy's wet dream in the early 1990s, but couldn't get it passed under Clinton. it passed under Bush in a fit of bipartisanship and was an awful mistake. the only way to opt out is to get a waiver, but that waiver requires the applying state to comply with other onerous federal rules.
19? 19 states opting for federal rules rather than maintain local control? perfect. what next? national police force?
NH's motto is 'live free or die'. those 19 states? 'its better to live on your knees than die on your feet'. pathetic.
The numbers I quote are accurate. Workforce participation rate. No hidden numbers. The WH is a source of information when you're talking about NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RATES. If you can't trust their numbers, you might as well stop replying, because I know you're on a pretty wild conspiracy-induced fantasy ride.
2 percent less people are in the work force now than in 2008. That's with all the jobs lost in the recession. In the recession, we lost EIGHT MILLION JOBS. And, somehow, there's only two percent less people working now than in the middle of the recession, when we only lost FOUR MILLION JOBS. I think Obama's done some great work, if you actually follow the numbers and do the math.
I've looked again and again, and there's no BLS statistic that support your "real unemployment rate of 12 %" anywhere.
http://portalseven.com/employ...
You can look up any employment rate you want to, but that's not an accurate number reported anywhere.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012...
If we were to use your "official unemployment rate" we'd have almost the same thing When Obama took office and that's with 4 million more jobs in the market.
I'm not quite sure what argu...
The numbers I quote are accurate. Workforce participation rate. No hidden numbers. The WH is a source of information when you're talking about NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RATES. If you can't trust their numbers, you might as well stop replying, because I know you're on a pretty wild conspiracy-induced fantasy ride.
2 percent less people are in the work force now than in 2008. That's with all the jobs lost in the recession. In the recession, we lost EIGHT MILLION JOBS. And, somehow, there's only two percent less people working now than in the middle of the recession, when we only lost FOUR MILLION JOBS. I think Obama's done some great work, if you actually follow the numbers and do the math.
I've looked again and again, and there's no BLS statistic that support your "real unemployment rate of 12 %" anywhere.
http://portalseven.com/employ...
You can look up any employment rate you want to, but that's not an accurate number reported anywhere.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012...
If we were to use your "official unemployment rate" we'd have almost the same thing When Obama took office and that's with 4 million more jobs in the market.
I'm not quite sure what argument you thought you had on that issue, but it's not adding up to much.
Obama did have the answers to the housing crisis. Refinancing, so that those who were in trouble with their houses didn't totally lose them. That's why, when you look at those that actually have had foreclosures NOW as opposed to 2009, the numbers have stayed basically THE SAME. He stemmed the flow of blood, now he's got to bandage the wound. You seem to think this all happens at once? I'd like to hear how.
But, with that said, considering that the economy is still recovering, people aren't looking to buy as readily and therefore less people own property and property values have gone down.
If you'll note, the average salary in America is down only about 7.7 percent from 3 years ago. So, people are making about as much, but don't own as much capital. I'm not worried about that.
The waiver system is negotiated on by the governor. Federal laws only require a stricter policy than what states already had, but with a longer time-frame. UNless you're happy with the lack of success your state has had with it's own proposed benchmarks for progress, something has to be done to raise the bar and the states haven't been doing it.
LOL @ your slippery slope tangential argument.
Enjoy.
Nebraska cetainly didn't need more public servants. With Republicans in charger, we have a 4.1 percent unemployment rate,. The highest unemployment rate we got to was 5 percent.
Teachers
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants: about $2.5 billion given in 2012 to increasing the number of highly qualified teachers and administrators in schools
Transition to Teaching: about $26 million in 2012 to recruit and retain highly qualified midcareer professionals for high-need schools
TEACH Grants: an estimated $118 million in 2012 to fund college students who agree to become highly-qualified teachers in schools serving students from low-income families for at least four years
Stafford Loan Forgiveness for Teachers: an estimated $130 million in 2012 to forgive federal student loan debt for those who agree to become highly-qualified teachers in schools serving students from low-income families for at least four years
Firefighters
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program: grants for fire departments to enhance their abilities with respect to fire and fire-related hazards
Reimbursement for Firefighting on Federal Property: payments to local fire departments to reimburse their costs for fighting fires on federal property
Police
Community Policing Development: funds to advance the practice of community policing in law enforcement agencies through...
Teachers
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants: about $2.5 billion given in 2012 to increasing the number of highly qualified teachers and administrators in schools
Transition to Teaching: about $26 million in 2012 to recruit and retain highly qualified midcareer professionals for high-need schools
TEACH Grants: an estimated $118 million in 2012 to fund college students who agree to become highly-qualified teachers in schools serving students from low-income families for at least four years
Stafford Loan Forgiveness for Teachers: an estimated $130 million in 2012 to forgive federal student loan debt for those who agree to become highly-qualified teachers in schools serving students from low-income families for at least four years
Firefighters
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program: grants for fire departments to enhance their abilities with respect to fire and fire-related hazards
Reimbursement for Firefighting on Federal Property: payments to local fire departments to reimburse their costs for fighting fires on federal property
Police
Community Policing Development: funds to advance the practice of community policing in law enforcement agencies through training and technical assistance
COPS Hiring Program: funds to hire an estimated 500-plus police officers in 2012, by paying up to 75 percent of the new recruits’ salaries for three years
Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation: funds to hire and train police officers for federally recognized Tribal jurisdictions
http://thinkprogress.org/econ...
Those teacher payouts are one way to buy individual and union political loyalty even as they pad local education expenses. those payments are questionable.
would it be better if the feds block granted those payment for fire training and equipment 'enhancements'? i'd think so. those reimbursements for firefighting on federal property cover costs. those aren't grants.
its nice that the feds pay for community policing. shouldn't THAT be a block grant too? COPS hiring program is a teaser. they pay 3/4 of a cop for 3 years then the locality MUST keep that policeman for at least, i seem to recall, 5 years. its great for cops, but it can, and has put a strain on local funding of that expanded head count. those cities and towns that do pick up the COP 'grant' need to be very sure they can afford that cop in the out years.
those payments are not all good news. they come with serious local ramifications.
- To Protect the Country
- Maintain Foreign Commerce
- Maintain Foreign Negotiation
With less tax revenue needed to fund the federal government, individual states could impose necessary taxes to fund police, fire and education in conjunction with county and local taxation. Not only do states, counties and local governments have better knowledge how best to spend those funds but accountability is much better because money flows through less hands and bureaucratic corruption is much more controllable than at the federal level. In most cases, the overall tax burden on citizens would decrease sharply getting the federal government out of the picture completely.
those are all local requirements. i have no idea why Obama has now made adding more gov't overhead in any way beneficial the 'meme of the week'. its insane.
The economy isn't stimulated by trying to balance a budget. You have the funds to fix infrastructure by hiring unemployed laborers? DO THAT. That's more people that CAN PAY TAXES. But, no... concentrate on trying to balance the budget. A budget that might not be there because people move out of your state? Probably. You don't care about them, though, because you want to balance your budget.
Why would Obama talk about putting people to work, which is what the government does on all levels with federal funding? I don't know... he's the president, so I think that he's entitled to talk about what the government is doing to help people have jobs.
I thought that the most important thing in this election would be JOBS. I guess it's not, all of a sudden.
The private sector doesn't save the economy from tanking in times like this. If you believe it does, you haven't paid attention to the size of the government workforce in times after a recession. History doesn't back your play.
I don't think you know anything about Keynesian economics, but you should read up on what the government really functions like. Enjoy the lessons.
If we were to operate the way you'd like, there'd be no more America.
His fiscal policies weren't really all that sound, either, but I guess you love the kind of guy that'll let everything burn around him, because he thinks it's the right thing to do. Brilliant.
As a matter of fact, as one of the six voting against the 1964 Civil rights act, Senator Goldwater, on principle, disagreed with the idea of Federal government intervention regarding this matter. “His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.”[3]
More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To...
As a matter of fact, as one of the six voting against the 1964 Civil rights act, Senator Goldwater, on principle, disagreed with the idea of Federal government intervention regarding this matter. “His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.”[3]
More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]
http://www.freedomsjournal.ne...