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.
Now, we can go back to GOLDWATER.
Yes, he objected to the issue on states' rights vs. federal. So when it came to greatest vote the Legislative Branch has made in the last 50 years, Goldwater was on the wrong side of the fence.
He didn't believe that the feds should control a national issue. Too bad for him. He might've been a nice guy, if not for that idea.
that's textbook economics. whatever money the gov't diverts from teh private sector is a drag on the private sector because such sector has less money left to expand itself.
that's textbook macro.
stimulus doesn't work. it builds constituencies by spending tax dollars and the constituencies built, vote.
oops. just like a democrat. worrying about things like feelings versus concrete things like worrying about how much things cost.
the gov't doesn't put people to work. if they did, that $7T dollars we spent since the bust would have us flying along. are we flying along? no. ergo: stimulus doesn't work. why would Obama talk about that? because he's trying to bamboozle you lightweights for your vote and you don't know any better.
well, there's one problem that you don't have your arms around. its not about jobs. its about a functioning ECONOMY. right now, its broadly broken. on 1/1/13, we hit the tax wall and we'll be back in a recession by the end of 1Q13.
.
Stimulus does and has worked multiple times.
But, you're right. Your state shouldn't take any government funds and then, it should fire everyone it can't afford. Have a good time in that economic blunder.
we've spent $7T since the bubble burst. if stimulus worked, we'd have tiny unemployment and rapid growth.
how're we doing with that?
we've been right sizing our school district for the last two years. NH just passed a law that basically ended teacher tenure, so there's no more hiding. no more iron rice bowl. for a fiscally responsible town here in NH, its a buyer's market for highly qualified teachers police and fireman.
is that a problem for you?
I was talking about the fiscal policies when dealing with recession recoveries. Reagan, Bush one and two have all been part of those recoveries. And, under them all, huge increases in government jobs were made. Another chart? OK:
Stimulus has worked before, so why shouldn't it now? OH, I don't know... because it's Obama we are talking about? OK.
If you happen to think that, in three years, we'd have 4.3 million jobs IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR without any stimulus spending, I'd love to hear how you come to that conclusion. If you happen to think that bailing out the largest industry in the country wasn't a good idea and didn't save millions of jobs, I'd also like to hear about why that's the case.
Yes, fire teachers that underperform, just like you should fire students that underperform. Or, you might wanna give some sort of mentoring to teachers that are underperforming. Just an idea. I know, I'm not a teacher or a local official. Just saying, though. It might actually help in the long run.
Having a policy in place that's harsher than those in most states in the country doesn't really seem to want a...
I was talking about the fiscal policies when dealing with recession recoveries. Reagan, Bush one and two have all been part of those recoveries. And, under them all, huge increases in government jobs were made. Another chart? OK:
Stimulus has worked before, so why shouldn't it now? OH, I don't know... because it's Obama we are talking about? OK.
If you happen to think that, in three years, we'd have 4.3 million jobs IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR without any stimulus spending, I'd love to hear how you come to that conclusion. If you happen to think that bailing out the largest industry in the country wasn't a good idea and didn't save millions of jobs, I'd also like to hear about why that's the case.
Yes, fire teachers that underperform, just like you should fire students that underperform. Or, you might wanna give some sort of mentoring to teachers that are underperforming. Just an idea. I know, I'm not a teacher or a local official. Just saying, though. It might actually help in the long run.
Having a policy in place that's harsher than those in most states in the country doesn't really seem to want anyone to rush over to start teaching, now does it?
It may not be a problem for me, that you've turned your town into a buyers' market, but be prepared for the high turnaround associated with such management. It happens in the private sector all the time. Enjoy.
Speaking of teachers-- H.B. 542 seems like the dumbest law I've ever heard of. Maybe, someone should let teachers teach and parents parent, instead of trying to conflate the two in their legislation, huh? Just an opinion.
that second graph ought to be telling you something compelling. this is an awful recovery and we can't afford expanding public rolls...
you've got to be skeptical of democrat campaign memes. they're trying to confuse you.
Reagan's 1981recession was Volcker wringing inflation out of the economy. when he cut taxes, the economy took off.
Bush 1 raised taxes, but fire saled all the real estate debris from his bust.
Bush 2 was all over the map. he cut taxes, but tried small 'stimulus' (it didn't work. economic activity blipped up for a month or two then settled right back to where it was), then went big into stimulus before he was replaced by Obama who continued to stimulate. with $1T running deficits, Obama's budgets should not be considered the new 'normal'.
stimulus has never worked. especially now.
deficit spending by over $1 TRILLION is stimulus. if you weren't aware. those 4.3 million jobs are a contrived number from the White House for the political benefit of the WH. we're MISSING millions of jobs.
are you talking about saving the auto industry? he didn't save crap. they were bankrupt, they were going through a reorganization and all their long te...
that second graph ought to be telling you something compelling. this is an awful recovery and we can't afford expanding public rolls...
you've got to be skeptical of democrat campaign memes. they're trying to confuse you.
Reagan's 1981recession was Volcker wringing inflation out of the economy. when he cut taxes, the economy took off.
Bush 1 raised taxes, but fire saled all the real estate debris from his bust.
Bush 2 was all over the map. he cut taxes, but tried small 'stimulus' (it didn't work. economic activity blipped up for a month or two then settled right back to where it was), then went big into stimulus before he was replaced by Obama who continued to stimulate. with $1T running deficits, Obama's budgets should not be considered the new 'normal'.
stimulus has never worked. especially now.
deficit spending by over $1 TRILLION is stimulus. if you weren't aware. those 4.3 million jobs are a contrived number from the White House for the political benefit of the WH. we're MISSING millions of jobs.
are you talking about saving the auto industry? he didn't save crap. they were bankrupt, they were going through a reorganization and all their long term liability was taken away. that's what bankruptcies do.
he didn't save anything. taking credit for a company reorganizing is appalling.
teachers mentor each other, as part of their jobs. seeing that tenure is over, we were concerned that making positions competitive under any potential 'reductions in force' would hurt that collegiality, but, so far, so good.
in many cases, teaching is a fall back position for many with liberal arts degrees. with the contraction of public employment rolls, its made teaching a far more competitive job than it used to be. i'm not sure that's a bad thing.
its not just my town. its the whole Northeast. the way NH is set up, if you're a teacher with 10 years experience, and you want to switch towns, you go into that second town without losing seniority on that pay scale. teachers do DO that for any number of reasons, but turnover is very small, beyond things like retirements and moving for a spouses job.
HB 542? we had two cases of strong parental objection to provided material in our Town that made national headlines. it was because the parental signoff was at the start of the year, and it entailed a list of possible materials. both books were rejected by the School Board/Admin after a lot of citizen pushback. be that as it may, when stuff like that happens, you get things like HB542.
much current NH legislation is driven by our rabidly libertarian House. NH was the destination of a lot of Free Staters when they decided they wanted to coalesce around one state. it has been an adventure. we still need to work through some money woes that earlier Statehouses left, but we're heading in the right direction.
Contrary to your belief, that's the fact of the matter with regards to government growing under Reagan, Bush and his son when regarding recession recovery. The plan they used to enact recovery was to create public sector growth FIRST.
I thought that's what we were talking about. The second graph shows how much of that was done withing their first 30 months.
Reagan, Bush and his son ALL RAISED TAXES in their tenure (even with regard to tax cuts under BUSH II, the wealthy still paid higher taxes), too. Reagan raised taxes twice in the first 24 months as president.
But one thing is very certain and that's what they did in the public sector as soon as they got into office. Bush and his son didn't even wait 6 months before adding to the public sector work force. That's got nothing to do with tax policy, either.
Now, you're telling me the WH is lying and creating numbers out of thin air? Odd. That's not what's really happening. When it comes to jobs in the private sector... NET JOBS in total, by anyone's math, we are very close to have more than when Obama took office. That's not spin, but fact.
http://mollysmiddleamerica.b...
Contrary to your belief, that's the fact of the matter with regards to government growing under Reagan, Bush and his son when regarding recession recovery. The plan they used to enact recovery was to create public sector growth FIRST.
I thought that's what we were talking about. The second graph shows how much of that was done withing their first 30 months.
Reagan, Bush and his son ALL RAISED TAXES in their tenure (even with regard to tax cuts under BUSH II, the wealthy still paid higher taxes), too. Reagan raised taxes twice in the first 24 months as president.
But one thing is very certain and that's what they did in the public sector as soon as they got into office. Bush and his son didn't even wait 6 months before adding to the public sector work force. That's got nothing to do with tax policy, either.
Now, you're telling me the WH is lying and creating numbers out of thin air? Odd. That's not what's really happening. When it comes to jobs in the private sector... NET JOBS in total, by anyone's math, we are very close to have more than when Obama took office. That's not spin, but fact.
http://mollysmiddleamerica.bl...
I'm not quite sure what the talk of this deficit is all about, because it wasn't anything I brought up. But, if you want to discuss that, I'll be your huckleberry.
The deficit under Obama has very little to do with spending on his end. It's got more to do with low revenues due to the recession.
This isn't much different than the CBO numbers from the last three years, either. The deficit is a direct result of lost revenue and not due to spending under Obama.
But, that does look like it's going to change.
http://www.businessweek.com/a...
Revenues have been on the rise for the last three years, but they still have to catch up with the loss we faced in the recession. That's how a deficit happens.
the WH is creating self serving numbers. those 'net jobs'? if they're flipping hamburgers, do they really count? SHOULD they really count? in your 'take it easy on Obama world', a burger flipper is just as good as an engineer.
its spin. awful spin.
its spending. federal spending was up to 3.8 Trillion. receipts dropped to $2.1T from $2.4T. i'll throw him $300B, but he still ran consecutive $1T deficits every year he's sat there.
revenue loss? when my paycheck comes up light, i don't say i'm suffering from a 'revenue loss' and go out and keep spending. i stop spending...
deficits happen when spending outstrips receipts. he's really outstripped receipts. and shows no sign of cutting back.
what'll be interesting to see what everyone thinks when taxes explode on 1/1/13 and the projected recession hits later that quarter.
I'm a retired teacher. My paycheck came from the county's property taxes.
So do the salaries of firefighters and policeman.
Those positions are paid for by the city, county or state.
What makes you think the federal government had anything to do with my paycheck?
(other than taking money out of it.)
That would make us federal employees and we are NOT.
The Executive Office at the federal level has very little to do with those positions.
The only time it might is the case of the stimulus . . . and Congress (the Legislative branch) makes that decision.
But hopefully, that only has to be done every 3 or 4 decades (if you believe in Keynesian economics)
And even then the money goes to the states to hire more teachers, policemen or firefighters.
You certainly don't want it to be a yearly thing, That would bankrupt us faster than Obama already is.
Congress does set aside money for grants for the states but those grants comprise less than 2% of the revenue from the state, counties or cities.
Not one of them sets a foot inside a classroom.
And taxpayer money goes to pay their salaries, not to the classroom.
Ask any teacher that doesn't have the fist of the union over their head.
However, no matter which way you slice it, their paychecks come from the local governments. Your point is like saying "I don't own my house, the bank does".
http://www.sodahead.com/unite...