Comments Related To: Romney smaller government means fewer teachers, firefighters and cops

When Romney speaks of helping the American people he means the one per cent such as himself!

those ARE the only people he knows. (servants don't count as people you know)

There is a law of nature.. there is a law of the land.. there is a rule of thumb.. there is a fact of life, and it is as clear as the nose on our faces:

If you pay for the processes, the need diminishes to the rational.
If I pay for the processes, the need increases to the irrational, and you have more people arguing mute points NOBODY cares about.

If the general program has one administration and the rest are doers, things really get done. Add a little over-site, and expert advice, and the job gets done well.

Reduce the Federal Government, move the processes down to the State Level of paying for the goodies, and you can bet your booty, the community will have what it needs and not a whole lot more unless the community pays for it. (Ooooh HORRORS... they will have to tax their citizens, and get the job done)

What of BHO who is helping the 'poor' by cutting Medicare by $500B to 'help' fund Obamacare; or, the stimulus for shovel ready jobs that went to fund public worker (teachers, firefighters, police, etc.) raises for just a year? If those social programs are so great, why has there been the creation of a permanent socio-economic underclass? We have the intrinsic entitlement DNA that has been bred into the past 2-3 generations by the people who fought so hard to 'give' their progeny a better start at life than they had. Unfortunately, we have presented to us the unintended consequences of such laudable action(s). It will take another 2-3 generations to breed out that DNA; but we have a lot to overcome when we have such people as our community organizer out there constantly proponing class warfare and the DC elite who are so sensitive to the plight of the underprivileged. But, they are the typical regressive (aka liberal progressive; e.g., ACORN, dems, unions (SEIU, UAW, AFL-CIO, AFGE, AFSCME), weak-kneed RINOs); do as I say, not as I do. Yeah, people follow BHO 'cause he 'kin talk gud'. I do pray people see how much of an empty suit he is. If not, the current generation will provide us with the next generation where probably 1/5 will have never seen anyone in their family ever have a job – the dole is much too easy to collect. How many private sector jobs does it take to fund one government job (even considering they pay taxes), and fed pay leads private industry by 1/3 to 1/2? They are paid with tax dollars; their retirement portion is paid from their pay (tax dollars); the government's matching funds are paid with tax dollars; their SocSec is paid with tax dollars; their Medicare is paid with tax dollars. That goes for state, county and municipal employees as well (e.g., teachers in the public schools/colleges) - police and fire are exempt from this because they do provide a decent service - your safety. With public employees collecting unemployment, their tax burden on the private sector employees will be much less than when they are collecting full pay for doing a either a dismal job or make work tasks; e.g., teachers, education admin staff, state, county, & municipal civil employees. Focus on keeping front-line operational fire and law enforcement fully staffed, but reduce by 75% the admin support staff including extraneous/duplicative department and/or division heads.

- What of BHO who is helping the 'poor' by cutting Medicare by $500B to 'help' fund Obamacare? - He's not cutting it-the funds are being moved to another part of the program that will help the same people... http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/more-senior-scare/http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/more-senior-scare/

- or, the stimulus for shovel ready jobs that went to fund public worker (teachers, firefighters, police, etc.) raises for just a year? - More BS http://www.factcheck.org/politics/gop_stimulus_myths.html

- If those social programs are so great, why has there been the creation of a permanent socio-economic underclass? - In the last 3 years? there hasn't been a sudden creation of a 'permanent socio-economic underclass' any more than there were in the Bush era after the economy tanked on his watch. Shockingly it takes time to rebuild - and we are doing better than many of the EU countries who did EXACTLY what the republican's are proposing.

Beaner do you have any links to back that up or are you just getting your talking points from forwarded e-mails?

No, it is not going to another part of the program to assist the same people - unless the medical panels are the assistance that are being established - more government bureaucracy, which means only 60% of the Obamacare funds reach the 'assisted'. In New Jersey, Corzine used all of the stimulus for public workers' salaries for one year. He kicked the can down the road for Christie solve. Wisconsin, the same. California, the same. Obama is the food stamp president.
the financial crisis of the states is the result of collective bargaining of the public unions as well as the past state, county and local administrations with them kicking the financial responsibility down the road with gargantuan current and future benefits with one of the largest being no skin in the game for medical and retirement compensation; i.e., they do not pay into either account; with burden solely on the private sector workers. Further, the financial crisis was brought to you by the dems; i.e., Chris Dodd, Barney, Maxine, Conyers, Rangel, Jamie Gorelick, Rahm, Franklin Raines et al. Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush..
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Romney is a God in training so you have to allot more than 1%, say 1.oo1% maybe?

Congratulations, you have drank the Kool-Aid. Fearmongering! What is the Democrats' solution? Why, more spending, of course...which is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. Over 40% of the American people get some type of government aid. That is not sustainable, nor is it necessary. It does, however, give Democrats talking points such as this. They will not make tough decisions, they will not come up with a plan themselves, but they will certainly demonize anyone who does dare come up with an idea.

niffer1283, you have absorbed so much propaganda that you spout complete drivel. What is not sustainable are the "entitlement programs" doled out to corporations. You would prefer living in an unregulated environment, trusting corporations to limit toxic substances in our food and water, trust corporations to hire Americans instead of looking offshore and hiring foreigners to do the same job for a $l.00/hr, trust corporations to invest in America? Come on lady, the problems this country faces today has little to do with either conservative or republican politics. Both parties have bought into selling out the backbone, meaning us, to the highest bidder. Are you aware that members of Congress are able to make investments and profit from "inside information" upcoming bills that would either positively or negatively affect businesses? And it's legal, at least under current laws. Take your blinders off, you are being played.

Well, thank you so much for telling me what I'm thinking! Do you really think corporations should be told how to run their businesses? More government control is not the answer to *anything*. I own a small business, and if I want to hire someone overseas, what business is it of yours, or the government's? As it so happens, my employees are all from my local area, but again, it's none of your business or the government's. Small business owners have a target on their backs, the very people who provide the jobs in this country are being demonized by people like you who like to pretend you're oh, so informed! I'm not the one being played, my dear.

Sweetie, I've been around a long time. If you are a small business, then to ensure that your product is handled correctly, packaged correctly and in this country to ensure that your quality is maintained, I'm betting that you would hire American instead of foreign.You're making a specious point that proves nothing. I too own a small business and have for over thirty plus years. Although your small business may not need regulation, you are foolish to think that mega-corporations that are notorious for undercutting small business owners, don't need regulations while receiving government subsidies and tax cuts while the back bone of the country withers.Voting to support corporations only makes it more difficult for you to operate. Instead of insulting me, you should target the real problem. I was a banker that made loans to small businesses as well as corporations. I left the business in 1983 because of that deregulation...as a lender the writing was on the wall. I became a teacher and taught for 10 years and then opened my small business. It;s important to understand that perhaps I am not the enemy. Perhaps I am trying to get you to stop being so angry in order to correctly identify the enemy. Wall Street and the banks too big to fail were bailed out with the proviso to lend to small business and consumers. The banks decided to hold on to their new found fortune, invest it in CDOs and other risky ventures where they could earn 40% rather than the typical prime plus 3 or 4 for loans. And you say we don't need more regulation? If you're small, and you said your business was small, then the banks control your access to funding and not federal regulations. Get a grip lady, I'm trying to help you to see the light. Do you really want to see things get worse economically in this country? Well, unfortunately, it can get far far worse. You are not powerless and we would have even more power if we found a way to support one another. I know without a doubt the trust fund babies can't even conceptualize what the everyday American needs to live as well as we did prior to June of 2007 and what's more, they don't care. Well I do care.I care not only for myself but fr the millions of people who have lost their homes, their jobs, their reason for living.

"I got mine so F*ck everyone else" - yeah, that's the new mantra of the right.

Small business owners no more have a target on their backs now, than they did before - it's just harder to get by, because all those people who lost their jobs to outsourcing don't have money to spend. You are reaping what you sow. And I'm all for any size business to have less regulation as long as they DON'T get government subsidies in any way - that includes tax breaks - and they don't pay their employees so little that the government has to help them survive. Pay a livable wage or go out of business.

They're just taking a page out of the Republican's playbook, is what it looks like over here. Have we forgotten already about good old Mitch McConell saying "Our Job is to make sure Obama is a one-term President"? If THAT'S not the opposite of "making tough decisions" and/or "coming up with a plan" (like they did during the whole Health Care debate; they sure weren't demonizing anyone then, were they?), then I don't know what is. Itobin53, it was a good article, but it could have stood to have a little more length to it - perhaps with more quotes about what else Romney thinks would be good for business, and some Democrat-proposed ideas as well. +1

I completely agree with Mitch McConnell. If America as we know it is to survive, Obama has to go in November. He's a socialist to the core, and he and the Democrats are ruining our economy and our standing in the world.

Bush ruined our economy with 2 wars we couldn't afford and tax cuts for the rich - he was also disdained and a joke to most other countries. http://www.gallup.com/poll/146129/majority-americans-say-world-leaders-respect-obama.aspx Do any of you know the actual definition of a socialist? Obama is NOT one - and anyone with half an education or ANY research could tell you that - http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jun/08/roger-williams/roger-williams-says-obama-socialist/

Their job in Congress is NOT to obstruct every single thing - including, but not limited to, the health care plan which is MODELED after something their OWN PARTY helped devise. Their cuts will not be useful to any level of society except the one which bankrolled their ways into office; how can that be helpful? Private sector jobs are the way to return the economy to rights; I think we can all agree on that, but how can anyone stand there and say tax cuts for the richest of the private sector, in tandem with cuts in healthcare, education, social welfare and the like, which help to support the people who MAKE UP the bulk of the private sector jobs, is going to boost the economy? It won't - when people can't afford health insurance because their job(s) don't allow them to both pay rent/mortgages AND have coverage, they go without the insurance. Then they get sick, and they can't work. What did the Republicans do? Screamed about socialist fascism, as I recall. Spending is out of control - I agree with you. But saying that coverage for all, something similar to the Medicare you will someday enjoy, is wrong and hints of "socialism", is just silly. Your MEDICARE is socialism, if you wish to so define it in the same words - will you give that up? I bet you won't, once your work can no longer provide your health insurance. Obstructionism is not working for the American people you were chosen to elect. I am not naive enough to think that all Obama put his hand to is good and wonderful; he is a politician, in the end, for good or bad. But at least he and those few Congressmen and women, are attempting to do SOMETHING for this country, even if people don't agree with the whole idea. Which brings me to another funny point - a lot of people have pointed out that the Affordable Care Act, so "horrifying" and "reminiscent of police-state governing" as it is, is only terrible in its ENTIRETY. Once broken down, once people had the chance to actually see what it was they were yelling and screaming about ... they found they actually LIKED most of it. Hmm... Oh, that's right - all of them drank the Kool-Aid.

Congratulations, you have drank the Kool-Aid. Fearmongering! What is the Democrats' solution? Why, more spending, of course...which is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. Over 40% of the American people get some type of government aid. That is not sustainable, nor is it necessary. It does, however, give Democrats talking points such as this. They will not make tough decisions, they will not come up with a plan themselves, but they will certainly demonize anyone who does dare come up with an idea.

-They will not make tough decisions, they will not come up with a plan themselves, but they will certainly demonize anyone who does dare come up with an idea. _

I'm sorry!? who was the obstructionist congress who blocked everything from soldiers pay to 9-11 responders health care to make sure the Bush tax cuts didn't go away for the rich? Who blocked the healthcare bill (an idea to tackle the healthcare problems in this country) and the jobs bill, and the equal pay laws...etc.

In fact while were at it - what ideas did they come up with to fix anything at all?

Okay, so we accept the premise that spending on some programs of the government will be reduced. To those who advocate this spending, I have to ask: What IS the correct amount of spending? You have had 50 years to get this number correct, yet you always say, "We need to spend MORE." How do you know we need to spend more (if we really need to spend more)?

Secondly, more spending on cops can equate with more cops looking for more things to arrest people for, and more fines to extract out of the people in an area. Is that what's really needed? Where I live, there is one county sheriff and four deputies for the county, yet violent crime is almost non-existent. Do you think I want more deputies in my county so that more crime statutes can be passed, so that the deputies will have more people to harass so that they can collect more fines for the county? I'm happy with fewer cops and (even) fewer crimes.

Okay, so we accept the premise that spending on some programs of the government will be reduced. To those who advocate this spending, I have to ask: What IS the correct amount of spending? You have had 50 years to get this number correct, yet you always say, "We need to spend MORE." How do you know we need to spend more (if we really need to spend more)?

Secondly, more spending on cops can equate with more cops looking for more things to arrest people for, and more fines to extract out of the people in an area. Is that what's really needed? Where I live, there is one county sheriff and four deputies for the county, yet violent crime is almost non-existent. Do you think I want more deputies in my county so that more crime statutes can be passed, so that the deputies will have more people to harass so that they can collect more fines for the county? I'm happy with fewer cops and (even) fewer crimes.

Romney isn't going to down size this government, he didn't in his own state either and I'll tell you why...He has made the comment that if elected, that he would come down here in my South and end the Confederate Flag issue once and for all and quote?

This is telling for the simple fact that he is imposing the Federal Government against a States Sovereignty to make decisions according to the will of the citizens in that State on behalf of those citizens who have voiced as majority their demands upon that State to rule in their favor.

It is a States responsibility to act on the will of the people who are citizens of that State, not for a Government to force them to bend to it's federal guidelines...By making this Statement Romney has already shown that it will be business as usual and that his Liberal agenda will have precedence on all matters great and small of each and every State, whether they like it or not.

And he can keep his Mormon butt out of my South, he's not welcomed here and by the way, we have already put the issue to a vote and have compromised with both the NAACP and the Black Leaders in our area. But then came along our way the little Satan Al Sharpton, the biggest racist of all and stirred the kettle with his race baiting hatefulness and evil, and opened up what had already been worked out...Al can keep his black arse out of my South as well, he isn't welcomed here either...

Many blacks don't even know the history of the Stars and Bars and if they did, they would know that the Confederate Stars and Bars with the now famous X is not the original Battle flag, matter of fact it resembles the Stars and Stripes so much, that during the Second battle at Bulls Run in 1863 the flags were mistaken for the other and it had to be changed and is now the more commonly liked because of it's design.

If we are tom be rid of this flag because they wrongfully state it represents slavery, then we must also rid ourselves of old Glory for she too flew while flying over slavery, and let us be rid of the cross too because the Skinheads and KKK use it too for the opening of their hate filled meetings, as well as the Stars & Stripes, which is used far more often than the Stars and Bars?

Mark my word, Romney is going to fail, and he does not even have the delegates yet and he is being hailed the winner? I don't believe that's how this works at all...

If by smaller he means, cutting back on military and arms, getting rid of Homeland Security, the CIA, making voting districts larger, thus eliminating many politicians, breaking up large cities like Chicago, LA, NY, etc. into several smaller cities rolling property taxes back to the prices of the 1940's, confiscating the wealth and properties owned by the very rich, taxing beginning at the top of those making over $2.5 million a year of 98%, firing all of the Mercenaries companies, making laws which allow only people with IQ's above 150 to vote or run for office, we would have a very small government, with mainly Professors (like me) doctors, scientists and others belonging to Mensa running our country and if a law was passed allowing dueling to become legal again, then I am certain we would have fewer people in politics. Lastly, we need a law in which any corporation which does more than $500,000,000 is broken up and franchises of any sort could not leave the state in which they were founded and could not exceed 10 franchisees, than I am all for it.

The 1% has no need for teachers, police, nor firefighters, they have their own. Plus the more ignorant, insecure, and dependent the 99%, the easier to control.

Amen, Pollard. See how nicely the leftist media and the Democrats herd these people? Class warfare is exactly what they want. How many people earning $50,000 a year do you know who hire anybody? Keevin is right about one thing - the more ignorant, insecure, and dependent the 99% (which is a bogus figure, anyway), the easier they are to control. He just doesn't realize who's doing the controlling. Keep the freebies coming, eh, Keevin? Do you ever think about where the money for those goodies comes from?

What country did you live in between 2001 and 2009 to believe the US had a respected leadership role in the world? Actually people making less than $50,000 a year are the ones starting new companies and hiring about half the people by borrowing to finance their businesses. How do you expect to educate the 99% to be less ignorant, insecure, and dependent effectively with fewer and lower paid teachers?

I'm sure Niffer1283 must send her precious little snowflakes to private school and doesn't have to worry about the public school peons - who are stuffed 40 to a classroom and where underpaid teachers are forced to pass students who don't deserve it, with republican mandates like 'no child left behind'.

All those 'freebies' those poor people want - Bah! like a good education or access to affordable life saving health care - What are you thinking Keevin? they aren't rich enough to afford anything but slave wages and the crumbs that drop from the tables of the wealthy.

http://www.motifake.com/humanity-greedy-world-this-is-calendar-demotivational-posters-155478.html

What of BHO who is helping the 'poor' by cutting Medicare by $500B to 'help' fund Obamacare; or, the stimulus for shovel ready jobs that went to fund public worker (teachers, firefighters, police, etc.) raises for just a year? If those social programs are so great, why has there been the creation of a permanent socio-economic underclass? We have the intrinsic entitlement DNA that has been bred into the past 2-3 generations by the people who fought so hard to 'give' their progeny a better start at life than they had. Unfortunately, we have presented to us the unintended consequences of such laudable action(s). It will take another 2-3 generations to breed out that DNA; but we have a lot to overcome when we have such people as our community organizer out there constantly proponing class warfare and the DC elite who are so sensitive to the plight of the underprivileged. But, they are the typical regressive (aka liberal progressive; e.g., ACORN, dems, unions (SEIU, UAW, AFL-CIO, AFGE, AFSCME), weak-kneed RINOs); do as I say, not as I do. Yeah, people follow BHO 'cause he 'kin talk gud'. I do pray people see how much of an empty suit he is. If not, the current generation will provide us with the next generation where probably 1/5 will have never seen anyone in their family ever have a job – the dole is much too easy to collect. How many private sector jobs does it take to fund one government job (even considering they pay taxes), and fed pay leads private industry by 1/3 to 1/2? They are paid with tax dollars; their retirement portion is paid from their pay (tax dollars); the government's matching funds are paid with tax dollars; their SocSec is paid with tax dollars; their Medicare is paid with tax dollars. That goes for state, county and municipal employees as well (e.g., teachers in the public schools/colleges) - police and fire are exempt from this because they do provide a decent service - your safety. With public employees collecting unemployment, their tax burden on the private sector employees will be much less than when they are collecting full pay for doing a either a dismal job or make work tasks; e.g., teachers, education admin staff, state, county, & municipal civil employees. Focus on keeping front-line operational fire and law enforcement fully staffed, but reduce by 75% the admin support staff including extraneous/duplicative department and/or division heads.

So BeanerECMO wants to grow the economy with more layoffs, saying...."reduce by 75% the admin support staff including extraneous/duplicative department and/or division heads."

Tell me again how higher unemployment creates jobs?

I want you to keep more of your money, and let you spend it as you see fit. Government jobs do not grow the economy; private sector jobs do. Private sector spending grows jobs, not government spending other than the contracts let to private businesses to grow the economy. No, I don't mean picking winners (none) and losers; e.g., Solyndra (bankrupt),Energy Conversion Devices (move to Mexico), Evergreen Solar (bankrupt), Aptera (bankrupt), Fisker ($500M and a recall & bankrupt), Think (bankrupt), GE division move to China, etc.