Mitt Romney?

[mike]

so what do you all think about Mitt Romney? his adds sound good but i don't know much about him.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Re: Mitt Romney?

I like him better than any candidates on the Democrat side, but I'm not ready to support him in the primaries until I learn more about his policy stances.

[stevebeilgard]

Re: Mitt Romney?

he's pretty good, but won't stand a chance in reality.

[mike]

Re: Mitt Romney?

kinda wierd that we had all these opinions about jesus and his bones, wich we all no are nonsense but no one has an opinion about a guy running for president? i think he has the best chance for the republican ticket and no one can tell me our the rest of us anything about him?

[Guest michael_bolton]

Re: Mitt Romney?

I like both Romney and McCain for the Repubs, they both seem honest and very ethical. I just hope they can overcome what the media has built against them, gotta love the libs......

[Newarcher]

Re: Mitt Romney?

I gotta disagree with Mr. Bolton, I intensely dislike John McCain. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing and has shown himself to be a traitor to the party on way too many fronts. He had the gall to pass McCain Feingold, a blatent restriction on free speech.

McCain is DOA....sucking wind like a fish out of water. He can't win the primary let alone the general.

As for Romney, I don't know much about him. I would be willing to give him a shot. I do know his religion, being a mormon, is a stumbling block for many. I figure that most of the elected officials aren't generally devout people so I don't see that as a problem.....unless the person is a muslim. Then its a NO WAY NO HOW from me.

New

[johnf]

Re: Mitt Romney?

Got to go with New on this one. McCain is also way too soft on immigration. I don't think the feds could get rid of 20,000,000 illigals, but I think if given the power, local law inforcement could do it in a matter of months.

Same thing about Romney. Don't know a thing about him. There have been zero politcal adds for anyone down here. Guess we're still too insignificant in Arkansas.

[Guest ohbrother]

Re: Mitt Romney?

Gang, as a retired Union lobbist, let me say that no Republican has a chance in 08'. Look what happened this past election. Poor people are suffering, because of Republicans. Health care, living wage, coruption, and the list goes on.

[Newarcher]

Re: Mitt Romney?

Spoken like a true union jack!

Poor people are suffering because of themselves, not republicans. I don't know a single poor person who made good choices, stayed in school, delayed gratification, and works smart and hard--that stayed poor for very long. I've known many people who started life poor because of their parent's choices, but the ones who stayed poor did so using every ounce of effort they could to stay poor. The last time I applied for a job, they asked me about my experience and education, not my political affiliation. Poor people are victims of themselves, not the system.

For the rest of us, the economy is booming and people are doing well....except perhaps in union areas where companies are being extorted....but that's another story for another time. Home ownership is at an all time high, interest rates are down, the stock market is at an all time high.

The reason republicans lost in 06 is because they abandoned their core voters and let the democrats roll them over. To me, a staunch conservative, I watched as it appeared that there was only one party in DC, the democrats. The republicans outspent every single administration before them...that's if you discount the war costs. Entitlements under Bush expanded faster than under any other president ever. The republicans abandoned their Reagan principles and acted like democrats. That's why they lost.

New

[Guest ohbrother]

Re: Mitt Romney?

I still never saw anything in your reply that addressed a living wage, 49million Americans without health care, 750,000 homeless people, and Republican Congressmen going to jail by the bus load. Also the housing market in in decline, down 16%, and foreclousers last year up by 46%. Enough said back to hunting. Thanks

[Newarcher]

Re: Mitt Romney?

Well, maybe it is a difference in our persuasions....I am vehemently anti-union. However, it isn't the job of the government to mandate a living wage. We are a capitalistic society and supply and demand and the free market determine your wages...or should. Minimum wage is for retired people and teenagers. If you are trying to make a life on minimum wage in between those two areas, you have grossly mismanaged your life. That would be excepting people like mothers looking to make some bucks between dropping the kids off at school and picking them up and the like. Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage. You are supposed to improve your skills and make yourself more valuable in the marketplace. You are supposed to outpace the minimum wage by increasing your skills, experience, and education.

The number of uninsured Americans is grossly overstated, not factoring in part time workers, students, etc.

The number of homeless, well...there will always be people who are homeless. I did some work with the homeless in college and can pretty well say that most of them quite enjoy their existences and chose those existences. You can't save everyone from themselves. Occasionally, there will be one or two that accept the help to get out of homelessness (those that were homeless as a result of some catastrophic event as opposed to those that worked themselves into it over time).

As for the housing market, it is soft but that is called cycles pal. If we never had recesssions or depressions, the markets would never correct themselves and no one would be able to afford anything. Downturns are perfectly healthy and necessary. Home ownership is at all time records as are interest rates.

As for foreclosures, there are many factors that go into that. First and foremost, pitiful personal finance skills and not living within one's means. Second, stupid interest only mortgages. And so on.

Republicans didn't invent bankruptcies, nor homeless, no uninsured americans, etc. That's incredibly short sighted to blame that all on the repubs.

New

[EKYhunter]

Re: Mitt Romney?

So how many Americans are uninsured in your opinion?

[Newarcher]

Re: Mitt Romney?

Who can say?

What I can say is that the number is greatly exaggerated by pandering politicians who are seeking the vote of those who are all too easily convinced that their lack of healthcare is anyone's fault but their own.

New

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Re: Mitt Romney?

[ QUOTE ]

49million Americans without health care

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, there's exactly zero people in this country (Americans and others alike) who don't have access to emergency medical care. It is a law that hospital emergency rooms accept all patients in need of service, regardless of their financial status.

Perhaps you meant that there are 49 million without health insurance? Of course 49 million is over inflated by about 10%, but even so, of those who don't have health insurance, a significant percentage are young healthy adults who have chosen to forego insurance in favor of spending their earnings on other things. And that's the beauty of a free market society. If they don't want insurance and decide to buy a new car instead, more power to them.

[slugshooter]

Re: Mitt Romney?

[ QUOTE ]

He had the gall to pass McCain Feingold, a blatent restriction on free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wanted to touch on this statement because I can't really talk about Romney because I don't really know much about him. How did McCain singlehandedly pass the CFRA. He co-authored it with Russ Feingold, and unless there has been a serious breakdown in the deomcratic process, the only way it would pass would be for it to pass in the HoR and the Senate. So, I guess all who voted for it should be blamed.

As far as it being a restriction on free speech, it's basically on how one wants to perceive it, as is all issues that are brought up as restrictions on free speech. Should a person be allowed to donate as much money as he wants to a political candidate. Some people say that someone should be able to donate as much money as they want, others don't. The purpose was not to restrict freedoms, but to try and level the playing field for all political candidates so to speak. Does it work? Maybe, maybe not. The most popular candidates will get the most money depending on how many people donate, not by amount.

Like I said, it is all perception. The same people who claim that a restriction on the amount of money one can donate to a candidate is a violation of free speech but at the same time argue that flag burning should not be protected under the First Amendment.

[wtnhunt]

Re: Mitt Romney?

[ QUOTE ]

Also the housing market in in decline, down 16%,

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of curious as well where you come up with your numbers. Home ownership if I am not mistaken is at an all time high in this country. Last I heard the housing market(home sales) this year was off(think the number I heard on the news just yesterday was 13 percent), but that is after how many years of seeing the housing market and construction being well above the norms? A little drop after consecutive years of growth really eventually would be to be expected. To have an expectation that the housing market will continue to have record growth year after year forever, is just not very realistic.

On health care, have to agree completely with Texan here. Not only are all Americans guaranteed that they will be treated, but that is also afforded to the illegals who cross the border at the burden of the taxpayers.

On Romney, I really honestly dont know enough about him yet.

[Newarcher]

Re: Mitt Romney?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

He had the gall to pass McCain Feingold, a blatent restriction on free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wanted to touch on this statement because I can't really talk about Romney because I don't really know much about him. How did McCain singlehandedly pass the CFRA. He co-authored it with Russ Feingold, and unless there has been a serious breakdown in the deomcratic process, the only way it would pass would be for it to pass in the HoR and the Senate. So, I guess all who voted for it should be blamed.

As far as it being a restriction on free speech, it's basically on how one wants to perceive it, as is all issues that are brought up as restrictions on free speech. Should a person be allowed to donate as much money as he wants to a political candidate. Some people say that someone should be able to donate as much money as they want, others don't. The purpose was not to restrict freedoms, but to try and level the playing field for all political candidates so to speak. Does it work? Maybe, maybe not. The most popular candidates will get the most money depending on how many people donate, not by amount.

Like I said, it is all perception. The same people who claim that a restriction on the amount of money one can donate to a candidate is a violation of free speech but at the same time argue that flag burning should not be protected under the First Amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he didn't single handedly pass it. However, he showed the lack of discretion to sponsor it. That is enough to tell me I never want him and his side with the democrats this time and the republicans next time self in office.

New

[EKYhunter]

Re: Mitt Romney?

[ QUOTE ]

Who can say?

What I can say is that the number is greatly exaggerated by pandering politicians who are seeking the vote of those who are all too easily convinced that their lack of healthcare is anyone's fault but their own.

New

[/ QUOTE ]

So what about children? Is it their fault that they have no coverage? What about people who didn't go to College, who are working in the best job they can find, or elderly people who might be on a fixed income? So what do you tell these persons? Sorry, it's your own fault? What about some of our veterans who have no insurance or who can only get inadequate VA health care?

[OJR]

Re: Mitt Romney?

[ QUOTE ]

So how many Americans are uninsured in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one big farce about people not being covered for medical needs!

I have known dozens of people who do not have insurance, but if they need medical care, there are doctors, nurses and hospitals that take care of them at no charge! The taxpayer or the person with insurance pays indirectly for this care!

Who in their right mind would ever support "national health care"? If you really want to see how horrible the federal govenment is at running health care, look at the VA system, Medicare or Medicaid! It is beyond hope as to how horrible these programs are run!!

That bit about "no health care" is nothing but garbage from the unions and the democrats!

[Newarcher]

Re: Mitt Romney?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Who can say?

What I can say is that the number is greatly exaggerated by pandering politicians who are seeking the vote of those who are all too easily convinced that their lack of healthcare is anyone's fault but their own.

New

[/ QUOTE ]

So what about children? Is it their fault that they have no coverage? What about people who didn't go to College, who are working in the best job they can find, or elderly people who might be on a fixed income? So what do you tell these persons? Sorry, it's your own fault? What about some of our veterans who have no insurance or who can only get inadequate VA health care?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy big fellah.

Let me put it in perspective as this......you complained right there in your post about inadequate VA care for veterans. So your solution of socialized medicine is going to push that crappy VA medical care to EVERYONE.

New

[Newarcher]

Re: Mitt Romney?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

So how many Americans are uninsured in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one big farce about people not being covered for medical needs!

I have known dozens of people who do not have insurance, but if they need medical care, there are doctors, nurses and hospitals that take care of them at no charge! The taxpayer or the person with insurance pays indirectly for this care!

Who in their right mind would ever support "national health care"? If you really want to see how horrible the federal govenment is at running health care, look at the VA system, Medicare or Medicaid! It is beyond hope as to how horrible these programs are run!!

That bit about "no health care" is nothing but garbage from the unions and the democrats!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait until you or yours gets something bad and the doctor says "this experimental treatment will maybe work" and the government says NO. Try going outside the government and buying the care yourself? Nope, that would make you and the doctor a CRIMINAL.

But watch out when Clinton is elected. It will be pushed through and the stupid American voters who are asleep at the wheel will wonder "how did that happen?"

New

[wtnhunt]

Re: Mitt Romney?

[ QUOTE ]

So what about children? Is it their fault that they have no coverage? What about people who didn't go to College, who are working in the best job they can find, or elderly people who might be on a fixed income? So what do you tell these persons? Sorry, it's your own fault? What about some of our veterans who have no insurance or who can only get inadequate VA health care?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that your view is that we could assume that you support the government handling insurance, in yet you say right here yourself that there are problems with government handled health care for veterans. Seems a bit silly and somewhat ironic in a way doesnt it????

Health care insurance can be gotten for most people if they want it and are willing to get it. My family had an individual plan outside of any employers as the plans offered through work were more expensive group plans that offered lesser coverages than what i found on my own. The plan we had out of pocket was rather expensive, but we felt we needed it for sense of security, we could however have done without it, and probably would have actually saved quite a bit of money had we instead just put it back into savings for a just in case like the health flex savings plans. Problem for most people is if they do not have the discipline for putting back and not wasting wwhat is intended for the purpose they put it back for. Insurance really is like betting on risks, you are betting on the odds as to whether or not you will need it. Premiums have become so ridicuous, and best I can remember they have seemed to climb pretty astronomically ever since socialized health care talks first came about back in the 1990's.

[OJR]

Re: Mitt Romney?

I have been dealing with the VA hospitals since 1963 and there is not enough space or room on this forum to tell you how screwed up it is!

If this is the way that the government would run a federal health care program, we are in serious trouble and the voters should never elect someone who pushes for it!

[Newarcher]

Re: Mitt Romney?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

So what about children? Is it their fault that they have no coverage? What about people who didn't go to College, who are working in the best job they can find, or elderly people who might be on a fixed income? So what do you tell these persons? Sorry, it's your own fault? What about some of our veterans who have no insurance or who can only get inadequate VA health care?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that your view is that we could assume that you support the government handling insurance, in yet you say right here yourself that there are problems with government handled health care for veterans. Seems a bit silly and somewhat ironic in a way doesnt it????

Health care insurance can be gotten for most people if they want it and are willing to get it. My family had an individual plan outside of any employers as the plans offered through work were more expensive group plans that offered lesser coverages than what i found on my own. The plan we had out of pocket was rather expensive, but we felt we needed it for sense of security, we could however have done without it, and probably would have actually saved quite a bit of money had we instead just put it back into savings for a just in case like the health flex savings plans. Problem for most people is if they do not have the discipline for putting back and not wasting wwhat is intended for the purpose they put it back for. Insurance really is like betting on risks, you are betting on the odds as to whether or not you will need it. Premiums have become so ridicuous, and best I can remember they have seemed to climb pretty astronomically ever since socialized health care talks first came about back in the 1990's.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know I see it time and again over and over.

So called 'poor' people who can't afford ________. Be it life insurance, health insurance, renters insurance, and so forth.

Yet they can afford smokes, liquor, vacations I cannot, expensive cell phones, sattelite tv and bigscreen tv's, and other things that could be foregone. It's all about priorities...if I didn't have to pay car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, health insurance, I would have a LOT more money.

Yes, there are problems that need to be addressed but the answer is not letting the government handle our insurance.

The problem is that there is an entire generation lately of people who aren't responsible for anything. They make minimum wage....just the man keeping them down. and so on.

I shut one dude up who makes minimum wage framing homes and was complaining about not having insurance. Okay, how long have you been making minimum wage or very close to it? 5 years now. Okay, I think I found the problem. Starting at minimum wage isn't a bad thing, staying there and not advancing yourself or starting your own business is dumb.

New

[stevebeilgard]

Re: Mitt Romney?

we only have to look at countries that have free health care, and we will see that it is worth EXACTLY free: ie: nothing. it pure fact that 98% of canadian doctors leave the country for their medical care. check it out. it's true. and, very sad.